[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHGf_=qkJWEhwKRY4gu0wL4OLU1PhOW3=n6JNmAocSK-T0PhmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:42:15 -0400
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
trinity@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>, infinipath@...gic.com,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: Fix RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
>> I'm unhappy you guys uses offensive word so much. Please cool down all
>> you guys. :-/ In fact, _BOTH_ the behavior before and after Cristoph's
>> patch doesn't have cleaner semantics.
>
> Erm, this feature _regressed_ after the patch. All other concerns are
> secondary. What's so difficult to understand about that?
Because it is not new commit at all. Christoph's patch was introduced
10 releases before.
$ git describe bc3e53f682
v3.1-7235-gbc3e53f
If we just revert it, we may get another and opposite regression
report. I'm worried
about it. Moreover, I don't think discussion better fix is too difficult for us.
--
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