On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 11:21 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > * 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? > Ah, looking at the code, I guess comments are not needed. Thanks, -- Steve -- 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>