Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:44:51 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [kerneloops] regression in 2.6.27 wrt "lock_page" and the "hwclock" program |
| |
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > do you agree with the changelog and can i add your Signed-off-by ?
Sure. One thing I'd still like to see is that crazy "again" vs "survive" mess for x86-64 vs x86-32. I think the patch as posted will cause a new warning on x86-32 due to "unused label 'again'" or similar.
It's totally insane that we have two different versions of the oom handling for x86. I don't know why we do that, it's probably historical, and I _suspect_ that the 32-bit one has gotten a lot more testing.
And not just because there have been more of the 32-bit kernels around, but also because low-memory situations are probably more common on 32-bit setups. But I dunno.
So I would suggest you just pick the x86-32 version of that oom handling thing too. Unless you know some deep reason why the 64-bit one would be superior.
Linus
| |