[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804221613570.4868@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04 of 12] Moves all mmu notifier methods outside the PT
lock (first and not last
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:24:21PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Reverts a part of an earlier patch. Why isnt this merged into 1 of 12?
>
> To give zero regression risk to 1/12 when MMU_NOTIFIER=y or =n and the
> mmu notifiers aren't registered by GRU or KVM. Keep in mind that the
> whole point of my proposed patch ordering from day 0, is to keep as
> 1/N, the absolutely minimum change that fully satisfy GRU and KVM
> requirements. 4/12 isn't required by GRU/KVM so I keep it in a later
> patch. I now moved mmu_notifier_unregister in a later patch too for
> the same reason.
We want a full solution and this kind of patching makes the patches
difficuilt to review because later patches revert earlier ones.
--
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