* Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thank you Ingo and Andrew for the comments. I will take a look into it > ASAP and updates it here. Note, my objection wasnt a hard NAK - just an observation. If all things considered Andrew still favors the VM_FAULT_RETRY approach then that's fine too i guess. It's just that a quick look gave me the feeling of a retry flag tacked on to an existing codepath [and all the micro-overhead and complexity that this brings], instead of a clean refactoring of pagefault handling functionality into a higher MM level retry loop. So the alternative has to be looked at and rejected because it's technically inferior - not because it's more difficult to implement. (which it certainly is) Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
