From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C19396B004A for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o9QD4rIS024726 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:04:53 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04BAC45DE52 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:04:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D113545DE4E for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:04:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D481DB803C for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:04:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.105]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3641DB8038 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:04:51 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH 3/4] move cred_guard_mutex from task_struct to signal_struct In-Reply-To: <20101025175113.963CCC9E3C@blackie.sf.frob.com> References: <20101025174220.GA21375@redhat.com> <20101025175113.963CCC9E3C@blackie.sf.frob.com> Message-Id: <20101026220314.B7DD.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:04:50 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Roland McGrath Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , LKML , linux-mm List-ID: Hello, > > Except: I am not sure about -stable. At least, this patch should > > not go into the <2.6.35 kernels, it relies on misc changes which > > changed the scope of task->signal. Before 2.6.35 almost any user > > of ->cred_guard_mutex can race with exit and hit ->signal == NULL. > > I see no justification for a change like this in any -stable tree. It's > just a cleanup, right? If it's a prerequisite for the fix we like for an > "important" bug, then that's a different story. In its own right, it's > clearly not appropriate for backporting. Because [4/4] depend on [3/4] and I hope to backport it. Do you dislike it too? Thanks. -- 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