From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH 01 of 12] Core of mmu notifiers Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:19:28 +0200 Message-ID: <20080423181928.GI24536@duo.random> References: <20080422223545.GP24536@duo.random> <20080422230727.GR30298@sgi.com> <20080423133619.GV24536@duo.random> <20080423144747.GU30298@sgi.com> <20080423155940.GY24536@duo.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nick Piggin , Rusty Russell , Peter Zijlstra , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Kanoj Sarcar , Roland Dreier , Jack Steiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity , linux-mm@kvack.org, Robin Holt , general@lists.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins , akpm@linux-foundation.org To: Christoph Lameter Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org Errors-To: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:09:35AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Why is there still the hlist stuff being used for the mmu notifier list? > And why is this still unsafe? What's the problem with hlist, it saves 8 bytes for each mm_struct, you should be using it too instead of list. > There are cases in which you do not take the reverse map locks or mmap_sem > while traversing the notifier list? There aren't. > This hope for inclusion without proper review (first for .25 now for .26) > seems to interfere with the patch cleanup work and cause delay after delay > for getting the patch ready. On what basis do you think that there is a > chance of any of these patches making it into 2.6.26 given that this > patchset has never been vetted in Andrew's tree? Let's say I try to be optimistic and hope the right thing will happen given this is like a new driver that can't hurt anybody but KVM and GRU if there's any bug. But in my view what interfere with proper review for .26 are the endless discussions we're doing ;).