* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-03-15 15:32:40]:
> On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 20:30 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 00:28 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> > > I accept the blame and am willing to fix anything incorrect found in
> > > the code.
> >
> > :-), ok sounds right, just wasn't entirely obvious when having a quick
> > look.
>
> Does that mean we should be adding a comment there?
>
This is what the current documentation looks like.
#ifdef CONFIG_MM_OWNER
/*
* "owner" points to a task that is regarded as the canonical
* user/owner of this mm. All of the following must be true in
* order for it to be changed:
*
* current == mm->owner
* current->mm != mm
* new_owner->mm == mm
* new_owner->alloc_lock is held
*/
struct task_struct __rcu *owner;
#endif
Do you want me to document the fork/exit case?
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>