[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120419223252.GV1893@moon>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 02:32:52 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"matthltc@...ibm.com" <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: +
c-r-prctl-add-ability-to-set-new-mm_struct-exe_file-update-after-mm-
num_exe_file_vmas-removal.patch added to -mm tree
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:09:19AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > I guess maybe it's time to drop one-shot requirement and as result
> > we can drop MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED bit completely,
>
> Plus perhaps we can remove this for_each_vma check?
>
> > making overall code simplier?
>
> Personally I'd certainly prefer this ;)
>
> But let me repeat to avoid the confusion. I am fine either way,
> I am not going to discuss this again unless I see something which
> looks technically wrong. And the current MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED
> doesn't look right even if the problem is minor.
So if there no stong agrues against, lets rip all together --
and for_each_vma and MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED bits, finally making
code simplier.
Cyrill
--
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