On Wed, 7 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> The patch looks OK to me.
As far as I can tell, authorship has been destroyed by at least two of the
patches (ie Christoph seems to be the author, but Andrea seems to have
dropped that fact).
> The proposal is that we sneak this into 2.6.26. Are there any
> sufficiently-serious objections to this?
Yeah, too late and no upside.
That "locking" code is also too ugly to live, at least without some
serious arguments for why it has to be done that way. Sorting the locks?
In a vmalloc'ed area? And calling this something innocuous like
"mm_lock()"? Hell no.
That code needs some serious re-thinking.
Linus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
