Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:21:39 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> wrote:
> 
> > Thank you Ingo and Andrew for the comments. I will take a look into it 
> > ASAP and updates it here.
> 
> Note, my objection wasnt a hard NAK - just an observation. If all things 
> considered Andrew still favors the VM_FAULT_RETRY approach then that's 
> fine too i guess.
> 
> It's just that a quick look gave me the feeling of a retry flag tacked on 
> to an existing codepath [and all the micro-overhead and complexity that 
> this brings], instead of a clean refactoring of pagefault handling 
> functionality into a higher MM level retry loop.
> 
> So the alternative has to be looked at and rejected because it's 
> technically inferior - not because it's more difficult to implement. 
> (which it certainly is)
> 

I have wobbly feelings about this patch.  There are your issues, and a
long string of problems and fixes.  And my recent half-assed
linux-next-related fix which I didn't really think about.

It all needs a revisit/rereview/reunderstand cycle.