On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:50:49 -0800 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Peter's patch is less code and in that regard a bit nicer. I tried > > going that way once, but I just thought it was a bit too sloppy to > > do nicely with wait bit APIs. > > So I have to admit that when I read through your and PeterZ's patches > back-to-back, yours was easier to understand. > > PeterZ's is smaller but kind of subtle. The whole "return zero from > lock_page_wait() and go around again" and the locking around that > isn't exactly clear. In contrast, yours has the obvious waitqueue > spinlock. > > I'll think about it. And yes, it would be good to have more testing, > but at the same time xmas is imminent, and waiting around too much > isn't going to help either.. Sure. Let's see if Dave and Mel get a chance to do some testing. It might be a squeeze before Christmas. I realize we're going to fix it anyway so on one hand might as well get something in. On the other I didn't want to add a subtle bug then have everyone go on vacation. How about I send up the page flag patch by Friday and that can bake while the main patch gets more testing / review? Thanks, Nick -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>