[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090126232139.GA29561@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:21:39 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, npiggin@...e.de,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, travis@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com,
	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, arjan@...radead.org, hpa@...or.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3
* Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com> wrote:
> Thank you Ingo and Andrew for the comments. I will take a look into it 
> ASAP and updates it here.
Note, my objection wasnt a hard NAK - just an observation. If all things 
considered Andrew still favors the VM_FAULT_RETRY approach then that's 
fine too i guess.
It's just that a quick look gave me the feeling of a retry flag tacked on 
to an existing codepath [and all the micro-overhead and complexity that 
this brings], instead of a clean refactoring of pagefault handling 
functionality into a higher MM level retry loop.
So the alternative has to be looked at and rejected because it's 
technically inferior - not because it's more difficult to implement. 
(which it certainly is)
	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
 
