On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > Nacked for the same reason as just given to earlier version. Ugly too. > > Ok. Then we could still get back the also ugly solution in the earlier > patchsets that acquired the spinlock separately before getting to > do_wp_page (also no need for the separate patch anymore). Patch is > then shorter too.
Maybe. I should make it clear that I simply haven't examined the recent incarnations of your patch, was just commenting on an issue I could comment on quickly without needing to find time to think. So, I just want to make clear, this absence of Nack doesn't mean Ack: I remain uneasy with it all, waiting to see some architecture maintainers come along with a clear "Yes, this is how it should be". Hugh - 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/
