On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> But I'm replying before I've given it enough thought,
> mainly to let you know that I am back on it now.
So I applied your other two patches as obvious, but not this one.
I'm wondering - wouldn't it be nicer to just re-check (after getting
the anon_vma lock) that page->mapping still matches anon_mapping?
That said, I do agree with the "anon_vma_root" part of your patch. I
just think you mixed up two independent issues with it: the fact that
we may be unlocking a new root, and the precise check used to
determine whether the anon_vma might have changed.
So my gut feeling is that we should do the "anon_vma" root thing
independently as a fix for the "maybe anon_vma->root changed" issue,
and then as a separate patch decide on how to check whether anon_vma
is still valid.
Hmm?
Linus
--
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>