[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081013162157.GA32355@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:21:57 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [kerneloops] regression in 2.6.27 wrt "lock_page" and the
"hwclock" program
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > It's probably not a real issue in practice because this is about PID
> > 1, so i doubt it really matters, but still.
> >
> > So how about the patch below?
>
> Ack. As long as we don't have two versions and the code is impossible
> to look at.
thx, added your Acked-by and queued it up in x86/urgent.
The many dumb #ifdefs were the result of the mechanic unification of
fault.c - we waited for the bugs to get shaken out - it went pretty
well, there was only one in the end IIRC.
Now we can unify it semantically as well and create sane, maintainable
code with gradual patches. We used to have over 50 #ifdefs in fault.c
iirc, that's now down to 24. (still high but shrinking)
Ingo
--
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