From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:14:50 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: MMU notifiers review and some proposals Message-ID: <20080726131450.GC21820@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080724143949.GB12897@wotan.suse.de> <20080725214552.GB21150@duo.random> <20080726030810.GA18896@wotan.suse.de> <20080726113813.GD21150@duo.random> <20080726122826.GA17958@wotan.suse.de> <20080726130202.GA9598@duo.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080726130202.GA9598@duo.random> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Linux Memory Management List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, steiner@sgi.com, cl@linux-foundation.org List-ID: On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 03:02:02PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 02:28:26PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > If I had seen even a single number to show the more complex scheme > > Please post a patch that actually works then we'll re-evaluate what is > the best tradeoff ;). > > In the meantime please merge -mm patches into Linus's tree, this is > taking forever and if the changes are so small to go Nick's way and > his future "actually working" patch remains so small, it can be > applied incrementally without any problem IMHO, infact it is presented > as an incremental patch in the first place. BTW. has anyone else actually looked at mmu notifiers or have an opinion on this? It might be helpful for me to get someone else's perspective. I hate to cause conflict but obviously I think I have legitimate concerns so I have to raise them... -- 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