On Thu, 25 May 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Ah, I see what you're saying here. Good point, David, Hugh?
>
> The reason I did it was because of Hugh's trick to use MAP_SHARED
> protection and building on top of it naturally solves the patch conflict
> Andrew would have had to resolve otherwise.
I guess what we wanted is a patch that addresses the concern of both
patches and not a combination of the patches. IMHO the dirty notification
of David's patch is possible with the shared dirty pages patch if we allow
the set_page_dirty method in address operations to sleep and return an
error code. However, this may raise some additional issues because we have
to check whenever we dirty a page.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
