Hello, Andrew.
2012/10/31 Andrew Morton :
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:12:53 +0900
> Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
>> The pool_lock protects the page_address_pool from concurrent access.
>> But, access to the page_address_pool is already protected by kmap_lock.
>> So remove it.
>
> Well, there's a set_page_ad
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:31:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:12:53 +0900
> Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > The pool_lock protects the page_address_pool from concurrent access.
> > But, access to the page_address_pool is already protected by kmap_lock.
> > So remove
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:12:53 +0900
Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> The pool_lock protects the page_address_pool from concurrent access.
> But, access to the page_address_pool is already protected by kmap_lock.
> So remove it.
Well, there's a set_page_address() call in mm/page_alloc.c which
doesn't have loc
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 04:12:53AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> The pool_lock protects the page_address_pool from concurrent access.
> But, access to the page_address_pool is already protected by kmap_lock.
> So remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kin
Looks good to me.
The pool_lock protects the page_address_pool from concurrent access.
But, access to the page_address_pool is already protected by kmap_lock.
So remove it.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/highmem.c b/mm/highmem.c
index b3b3d68..017bad1 100644
--- a/mm/highmem.c
+++ b/mm/highmem.c
@@ -3
5 matches
Mail list logo