On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:44:22AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> >Yeah I had a bit of a look around, and it seems OK (but would
> >appreciate an ack from someone who knows the code).
> >
> >These pages will never get seen by page reclaim, so we're OK
> >there. There is a get_page before the SetPageLocked and a put_page
> >right before the unlock_page, so refcounting should not be broken
> >if it wasn't already: note that the lock_page doesn't pin a
> >reference on a page in general -- we can use it as such for pagecache
> >(although it isn't very clean), because the lock pins the page in
> >pagecache and the pagecache holds a ref.
> >
> >Anyway, if Dave or David can take a look, that would be appreciated.
> >We'll need this for 2.6.23.
>
> I talked with Ben earlier and I can't see anything inherently wrong
> with removing the lock_page, I assume it was put there to stop things
> getting swapped but if the get/put does that then I'd be happy to
> remove it.
Well it is prevented from being swapped out because it never gets
put on swapout lists, but the get/put certainly doesn't hurt :)
> I'm just a bit confused how this didn't get picked up in -mm at all.
Beats me. It was in there for nearly 5 months. Mustn't have been
tested or reported.
-
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]
