From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:14:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 04 of 12] Moves all mmu notifier methods outside the PT lock (first and not last In-Reply-To: <20080422224048.GR24536@duo.random> Message-ID: References: <20080422224048.GR24536@duo.random> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Nick Piggin , Jack Steiner , Peter Zijlstra , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Kanoj Sarcar , Roland Dreier , Steve Wise , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity , linux-mm@kvack.org, Robin Holt , general@lists.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Rusty Russell List-ID: On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:24:21PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Reverts a part of an earlier patch. Why isnt this merged into 1 of 12? > > To give zero regression risk to 1/12 when MMU_NOTIFIER=y or =n and the > mmu notifiers aren't registered by GRU or KVM. Keep in mind that the > whole point of my proposed patch ordering from day 0, is to keep as > 1/N, the absolutely minimum change that fully satisfy GRU and KVM > requirements. 4/12 isn't required by GRU/KVM so I keep it in a later > patch. I now moved mmu_notifier_unregister in a later patch too for > the same reason. We want a full solution and this kind of patching makes the patches difficuilt to review because later patches revert earlier ones. -- 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