linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "hugetlb: avoid taking i_mmap_mutex in unmap_single

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:28:32 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert
 "hugetlb: avoid taking i_mmap_mutex in unmap_single_vma() for hugetlb"

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:45:04 +0530
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> >
> > Unless Aneesh has another reason for the patch, it should be reverted
> > to preserve hugetlb page sharing locking.
> >
> 
> I guess we want to take this patch as a revert patch rather than
> dropping the one in -mm. That would help in documenting the i_mmap_mutex
> locking details in commit message. Or may be we should add necessary
> comments around the locking ?

Code comments would be better if possible - we shouldn't force people to
dig around in git history to understand small code snippets.
--
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/