On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:12:22 +0300 Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry, let me explain it in other words. > > I think, that protection in reader, that guarantees that it > will see the valid result, is not very important - even if > we compare usage and limit not atomically nothing serious > will happen (in this particular case) > Maybe there is no serious situation (now). But programmers don't assume that the function may not return trustable result. And I think it shouldn be trustable AMAP. I'd like to use seq_lock or res_counter_state, here. BTW, I'm wondering I should hold off my patches until 2.6.25-rc series if they make things complex. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
