From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 16:11:59 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm owner: fix race between swapoff and exit Message-Id: <20081002161159.735cbb85.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <48DCC068.30706@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: jirislaby@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp, kamezawa.hiroyuki@jp.fujitsu.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, menage@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:36:55 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins wrote: > > BTW there is also mm->owner = NULL; movement in the patch to the line before > > the callbacks are invoked which I don't understand much (why to inform > > anybody about NULL->NULL change?), but the first hunk seems reasonable to me. > > You draw attention to the second hunk of > memrlimit-setup-the-memrlimit-controller-mm_owner-fix > (shown below). It's just nonsense, isn't it, reverting the fix you > already made? Perhaps it's not the patch Balbir and Zefan actually > submitted, but a mismerge of that with the fluctuating state of > all these accumulated fixes in the mm tree, and nobody properly > tested the issue in question on the resulting tree. > > Or is the whole patch pointless, the first hunk just an attempt > to handle the nonsense of the second hunk? > > I wish there were a lot more care and a lot less churn in this area. I really don't see those patches going anywhere and they are, to some extent, getting in the way of real work. I'm thinking lets-drop-them-all thoughts. -- 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