On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 15:04 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:39:26 -0400
> Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > @@ -303,10 +303,10 @@ again:
> > goto out;
> >
> > anon_vma = (struct anon_vma *) (anon_mapping - PAGE_MAPPING_ANON);
> > - spin_lock(&anon_vma->lock);
> > + anon_vma_lock(anon_vma);
> >
> > if (page_rmapping(page) != anon_vma) {
> > - spin_unlock(&anon_vma->lock);
> > + anon_vma_unlock(anon_vma);
> > goto again;
> > }
> >
>
> This bit is dependent upon Peter's
> mm-revalidate-anon_vma-in-page_lock_anon_vma.patch (below). I've been
> twiddling thumbs for weeks awaiting the updated version of that patch
> (hint).
Yeah, drop it, the updated patch is only a comment trying to explain why
the current code is ok.
> Do we think that this patch series is needed in 2.6.35? If so, why?
> And if so I guess we'll need to route around
> mm-revalidate-anon_vma-in-page_lock_anon_vma.patch, or just merge it
> as-is.
>
I don't actually think that patch of mine is needed, the reject Rik's
patch generates without it is rather trivial to fix up, if you want I
can send you a fixed up version.
--
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