Hi - can someone confirm or deny that these are bugs?
I compiled pre1 for a 256Mb machine with them both "fixed", and it
worked fine.
Based on my quick reading of this patch:
+
+empty:
+ spin_lock(&mmlist_lock);
+ return 0;
The above should actually be spin_UNlock?
Also the test for !inactive_shortage() seems to be inverted?
+ /* If refill_inactive_scan failed, try to page stuff
out.. */
+ swap_out(priority, gfp_mask);
+ } while (!inactive_shortage());
-BenRI
--
"...assisted of course by pride, for we teach them to describe the
Creeping Death, as Good Sense, or Maturity, or Experience."
- "The Screwtape Letters"
Benjamin Redelings I <>< http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~bredelin/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
