On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:20:54 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:18:45 +0900 > Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:31:00 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:07:11 +0900 > > > Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hmm...accepatable ? (sounds it's in error-range) > > > > > > BTW, why local_irq_disable() ? > > > local_irq_save()/restore() isn't better ? > > > > > I don't have any strong reason. All of lock_page_cgroup() is *now* called w/o irq disabled, > > so I used just disable()/enable() instead of save()/restore(). > > My point is, this will be used under treelock soon. > I agree. I'll update the patch using save()/restore(), and repost later. Thanks, Daisuke Nishimura. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
