From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD8D6B005A for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:21:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:14:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [aarcange@redhat.com: [PATCH] fork vs gup(-fast) fix] In-Reply-To: <200903170502.57217.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: References: <1237007189.25062.91.camel@pasglop> <200903170419.38988.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <200903170502.57217.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Andrea Arcangeli , Ingo Molnar , Nick Piggin , Hugh Dickins , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Nick Piggin wrote: > > What part of that do you dislike, though? I don't think the lock is a > particularly elegant idea either (shared cacheline, vmsplice, converting > callers). All of the absolute *crap* for no good reason. Did you even look at your patch? It wasn't as ugly as Andrea's, but it was ugly enough, and it was buggy. That whole "decow" stuff was too f*cking ugly to live. Couple that with the fact that no real-life user can possibly care, and that O_DIRECT is broken to begin with, and I say: "let's fix this with a _much_ smaller patch". You may think that the lock isn't particularly "elegant", but I can only say "f*ck that, look at the number of lines of code, and the simplicity". Your "elegant" argument is total and utter sh*t, in other words. The lock approach is tons more elegant, considering that it solves the problem much more cleanly, and with _much_ less crap. Linus -- 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