From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx113.postini.com [74.125.245.113]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C50DB6B0062 for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 16:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ggm4 with SMTP id 4so257097ggm.14 for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:10:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1338368529-21784-1-git-send-email-kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> From: KOSAKI Motohiro Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:10:35 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mempolicy memory corruption fixlet Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Dave Jones , Mel Gorman , Christoph Lameter , stable@vger.kernel.org, hughd@google.com On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:02 AM, =A0 wrote: >> >> So, I think we should reconsider about shared mempolicy completely. > > Quite frankly, I'd prefer that approach. The code is subtle and > horribly bug-fraught, and I absolutely detest the way it looks too. > Reading your patches was actually somewhat painful. Oh, very sorry. I made effort to make smallest and simplest patches. But I couldn't I do better. Current MPOL_F_SHARED is cra^H^H^H complex. ;-) > If we could just remove the support for it entirely, that would be > *much* preferable to continue working with this code. > > Could we just try that removal, and see if anybody screams? I'm keeping neutral a while and hope to hear other developers opinion. Thank you. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org