KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > 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. Well... OK. Among other possible ways to achieve this goal seqlocks is the most preferable one from my POV. Thanks :) > 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. Actually, Andrew wrote that he will pay little attention to new functionality till 2.6.24 release, so I think that serious patches should really be held off. That's why I don't send the kmem controller yet :( > Thanks, > -Kame Thanks, Pavel _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
