[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3

    * Ying Han <> wrote:

    > Thank you Ingo and Andrew for the comments. I will take a look into it
    > ASAP and updates it here.

    Note, my objection wasnt a hard NAK - just an observation. If all things
    considered Andrew still favors the VM_FAULT_RETRY approach then that's
    fine too i guess.

    It's just that a quick look gave me the feeling of a retry flag tacked on
    to an existing codepath [and all the micro-overhead and complexity that
    this brings], instead of a clean refactoring of pagefault handling
    functionality into a higher MM level retry loop.

    So the alternative has to be looked at and rejected because it's
    technically inferior - not because it's more difficult to implement.
    (which it certainly is)


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-27 00:25    [W:0.023 / U:39.248 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site