On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:21:39 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * 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) > I have wobbly feelings about this patch. There are your issues, and a long string of problems and fixes. And my recent half-assed linux-next-related fix which I didn't really think about. It all needs a revisit/rereview/reunderstand cycle. -- 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
