Re: linux-2.5.20-ct1

[William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Please discard the atomic update patch altogether; there were enough
>> eyebrows raised that this cannot qualify as a simple cleanup.

On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:41:15PM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Is there something serious to add about them? Is it sure that they won't 
> work or such? Otherwise I'd suggest just getting them tested.

The original patch as posted is incorrect due to a misreading on my
part of what the flags clearing did. One of the few remotely close
to correct alternatives follows, but I will not endorse it as a
candidate for inclusion, but give it only as an illustration of how
incorrect the originally posted patch was.


Cheers,
Bill


===== mm/page_alloc.c 1.63 vs edited =====
--- 1.63/mm/page_alloc.c	Tue May 28 16:57:49 2002
+++ edited/mm/page_alloc.c	Mon Jun  3 16:27:41 2002
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@
 	if (PageWriteback(page))
 		BUG();
 	ClearPageDirty(page);
-	page->flags &= ~(1<<PG_referenced);
+	__clear_bit(PG_referenced, &page->flags);
 
 	if (current->flags & PF_FREE_PAGES)
 		goto local_freelist;