From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:20:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:20:11 -0400 Received: from imladris.infradead.org ([194.205.184.45]:63238 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:20:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:20:10 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.19pre7aa3 Message-ID: <20020430202010.A16236@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Andrea Arcangeli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020430203154.B11414@dualathlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 08:31:54PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Only in 2.4.19pre7aa3: 00_wake_up_page-1 > > Reintroduced wake_up_page (not deadlock prone anymore), for modules > that were waking up pages. For what module? (Don't say a agp/drm upgrade!) As the person who invented wake_up_page I can't really see a good reason for it anymore. Every single caller should have used unlock_page() instead.