On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:21:02 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 11:23 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > For extra style points, the commit introduced the use of yield() in an > > implementation of what looks like a spinning mutex. > > Andrew, could you simply say no to any patch adding a yield()? There's a > 99% chance its a bug, as was this. I'd normally at least poke my tongue out at it - I must have missed this one. > This code would life-lock when cpuset_change_task_nodemask() would be > called by the highest priority FIFO task on UP or when pinned to the > same cpu the task doing get_mems_allowed(). Joe, can we please have a checkpatch rule? -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>