From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1BCA6B0047 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:23:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:17:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [aarcange@redhat.com: [PATCH] fork vs gup(-fast) fix] In-Reply-To: <200903170529.08995.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: References: <1237007189.25062.91.camel@pasglop> <200903170502.57217.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <200903170529.08995.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's buggy about it? Stupid bugs, or fundamentally broken? The lack of locking. > In my opinion it is not, given that you have to convert callers. If you > say that you only care about fixing O_DIRECT, then yes I would probably > agree the lock is nicer in that case. F*ck me, I'm not going to bother to argue. I'm not going to merge your patch, it's that easy. Quite frankly, I don't think that the "bug" is a bug to begin with. O_DIRECT+fork() can damn well continue to be broken. But if we fix it, we fix it the _clean_ way with a simple patch, not with that shit-for-logic horrible decow crap. It's that simple. I refuse to take putrid industrial waste patches for something like this. 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