From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070711.203518.59469474.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: lguest, Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1184210118.6005.719.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1184208521.6005.695.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070711.195126.02300228.davem@davemloft.net> <1184210118.6005.719.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org From: Rusty Russell Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:15:18 +1000 Return-Path: To: rusty@rustcorp.com.au Cc: hch@lst.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > Sure, the process has /dev/lguest open, so I can do something in the > close routine. Instead of keeping a reference to the tsk, I can keep a > reference to the struct lguest (currently it doesn't have or need a > refcnt). Then I need another lock, to protect lg->tsk. > > This seems like a lot of dancing to avoid one export. If it's that > important I'd far rather drop the code and do a normal wakeup under the > big lguest lock for 2.6.23. I'm not against the export, so use if it really helps. Ref-counting just seems clumsy to me given how the hw assisted virtualization stuff works on platforms I am intimately familiar with :) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org