![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >>OK (either way is fine), but you should still drop the __isolate_lru_page >>nonsense and revert it like my patch does. > > > Ok with me. Magnus: You needed the __isolate_lru_page for some other > purpose. Is that still the case? > Either way, we can remove it from the tree for now. But I'm almost sure such a user would be wrong too. The reason it is required is very specific and it is because taking lru_lock and then looking up a page on the LRU uniquely does not pin the page. If you find the page via any other means other than simply looking on the LRU, then get_page_testone is wrong and you should either pin it or take a normal reference to it instead. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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: 2006-01-16 08:47 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||