From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:49:07 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code In-Reply-To: <20080129135914.GF7233@v2.random> Message-ID: References: <20080128202840.974253868@sgi.com> <20080128202923.609249585@sgi.com> <20080129135914.GF7233@v2.random> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Robin Holt , Avi Kivity , Izik Eidus , Nick Piggin , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Peter Zijlstra , steiner@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, daniel.blueman@quadrics.com, Hugh Dickins List-ID: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > + struct mmu_notifier_head mmu_notifier; /* MMU notifier list */ > > }; > > Not sure why you prefer to waste ram when MMU_NOTIFIER=n, this is a > regression (a minor one though). Andrew does not like #ifdefs and it makes it possible to verify calling conventions if !CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER. > It's out of my reach how can you be ok with lock=1. You said you have > to block, if you can deal with lock=1 once, why can't you deal with > lock=1 _always_? Not sure yet. We may have to do more in that area. Need to have feedback from Robin. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org