From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:45:20 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: MMU notifiers review and some proposals Message-Id: <20080727024520.7dd12bf0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080724143949.GB12897@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080724143949.GB12897@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Memory Management List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, andrea@qumranet.com, steiner@sgi.com, cl@linux-foundation.org List-ID: On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:39:49 +0200 Nick Piggin wrote: > I think everybody is hoping to have a workable mmu notifier scheme > merged in 2.6.27 (myself included). However I do have some concerns > about the implementation proposed (in -mm). > > I apologise for this late review, before anybody gets too upset, > most of my concerns have been raised before, but I'd like to state > my case again and involving everyone. Nick, having read through this discussion and the code (yet again) I think I'll go ahead and send it all in to Linus. On the basis that - the code is fairly short and simple - has no known bugs - seems to be needed by some folks ;) - you already have a protopatch which partially addresses your concerns and afaik there's nothing blocking future improvements to this implementation? And a late-breaking review comment: given that about 0.000000000000001% of people will actually use mm_take_all_locks(), could we make its compilation conditional on something? Such as CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER? -- 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