On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:45:04 +0530
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" wrote:
> >
> > Unless Aneesh has another reason for the patch, it should be reverted
> > to preserve hugetlb page sharing locking.
> >
>
> I guess we want to take this patch as a revert patch rather than
> dropping the one in -mm. That would
Mel Gorman writes:
> This reverts the patch "hugetlb: avoid taking i_mmap_mutex in
> unmap_single_vma() for hugetlb" from mmotm.
>
> This patch is possibly a mistake and blocks the merging of a hugetlb fix
> where page tables can get corrupted (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/24/93).
> The motivatio
On Fri 27-07-12 11:46:04, Mel Gorman wrote:
> This reverts the patch "hugetlb: avoid taking i_mmap_mutex in
> unmap_single_vma() for hugetlb" from mmotm.
>
> This patch is possibly a mistake and blocks the merging of a hugetlb fix
> where page tables can get corrupted (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7
This reverts the patch "hugetlb: avoid taking i_mmap_mutex in
unmap_single_vma() for hugetlb" from mmotm.
This patch is possibly a mistake and blocks the merging of a hugetlb fix
where page tables can get corrupted (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/24/93).
The motivation of the patch appears to be two
4 matches
Mail list logo
