Re: [PATCH] 2.4.0-test10-pre6 TLB flush race in establish_pte

2000-10-31 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 07:42:21PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > IMO you should apply Steve's patch (without any #ifdef __s390__) now. Agreed. Andrea - 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

Re: [PATCH] 2.4.0-test10-pre6 TLB flush race in establish_pte

2000-10-31 Thread Ulrich . Weigand
Andrea Arcangeli wrote: >>On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 03:31:22PM -0600, Steve Pratt/Austin/IBM wrote: >> [..] no patch ever >> appeared. [..] > >You didn't followed l-k closely enough as the strict fix was submitted two >times but it got not merged. (maybe because it had an #ifdef __s390__ that wa

Re: [PATCH] 2.4.0-test10-pre6 TLB flush race in establish_pte

2000-10-31 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:23:12AM -0600, Steven Pratt wrote: > I stand corrected, I missed this is my searching. [..] Never mind, it's nearly impossible to track every single message to l-k. It was only informational. > [..] Hopefully this will > get in this time. I hope too indeed :). Andrea

Re: [PATCH] 2.4.0-test10-pre6 TLB flush race in establish_pte

2000-10-31 Thread Steven Pratt
Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 03:31:22PM -0600, Steve Pratt/Austin/IBM wrote: > > [..] no patch ever > > appeared. [..] > > You didn't followed l-k closely enough as the strict fix was submitted two > times but it got not merged. (maybe because it had an #ifdef __s390__ tha

Re: [PATCH] 2.4.0-test10-pre6 TLB flush race in establish_pte

2000-10-30 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 03:31:22PM -0600, Steve Pratt/Austin/IBM wrote: > [..] no patch ever > appeared. [..] You didn't followed l-k closely enough as the strict fix was submitted two times but it got not merged. (maybe because it had an #ifdef __s390__ that was _necessary_ by that time?) You c

Re: [PATCH] 2.4.0-test10-pre6 TLB flush race in establish_pte

2000-10-30 Thread Kanoj Sarcar
> > So while there may be a more elegant solution down the road, I would like > to see the simple fix put back into 2.4. Here is the patch to essential > put the code back to the way it was before the S/390 merge. Patch is > against 2.4.0-test10pre6. > > --- linux/mm/memory.cFri Oct 27 15:

[PATCH] 2.4.0-test10-pre6 TLB flush race in establish_pte

2000-10-30 Thread Steve Pratt/Austin/IBM
Back in April there were discussions about the race in establish_pte with the flush_tlb before the set_pte. Many options were discussed, but due in part to a concern about S/390 having introduced the code, no patch ever appeared. I talked with Martin Schwidefsky of the S/390 Linux development te