[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:0.260 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site