on 2010-3-25 18:23, Miao Xie wrote: > on 2010-3-11 19:03, Nick Piggin wrote: >> Well... I do think seqlocks would be a bit simpler because they don't >> require this checking and synchronizing of this patch. > > Hi, Nick Piggin > > I have made a new patch which uses seqlock to protect mems_allowed and mempolicy. > please review it. > > title: [PATCH -mmotm] cpuset,mm: use seqlock to protect task->mempolicy and mems_allowed > Sorry! Please ignore this patch, because I sent an old version. I'll send the new one later. Regards! Miao -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>