[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803071201000.6815@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:03:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
cc: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
daniel.blueman@...drics.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 4/4 i_mmap_lock spinlock2rwsem (#v9 was 1/4)
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I didn't look into this but it shows how it would be risky to make
> this change in .25. It's a bit strange that the bugcheck triggers
Yes this was never intended for .25. I think we need to split this into a
copule of patches. One needs to get rid of the spinlock dropping, then one
that deals with the read concurrency issues and finally one that converts
the spinlock. Thanks for looking at it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists