![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > Update comments (only) on page_table_lock and mmap_sem in arch/powerpc.> > [snip]> > > /* > > - * No need to use ldarx/stdcx here because all who > > - * might be updating the pte will hold the > > - * page_table_lock > > + * No need to use ldarx/stdcx here > > */> > If you're going to remove the because clause you might as well remove > the whole comment. What you have left is either redundant or > mystifying (according to the depth of knowledge of the reader). And > in fact I don't think I could now say why we don't need an atomic > update sequence there, so I would appreciate something that updates > the "because" part. All I'm doing here is tidying up by removing the no-longer-appropriate reference to page_table_lock. As my snipped patch comment said: > Update comments (only) on page_table_lock and mmap_sem in arch/powerpc. > Removed the comment on page_table_lock from hash_huge_page: since it's > no longer taking page_table_lock itself, it's irrelevant whether others > are; but how it is safe (even against huge file truncation?) I can't say. I'd appreciate something that updates the "because" part too, but don't know the answer. That other patch will need to come from your end - Ben? Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-11-22 08:16 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||