Hi,
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Anton Altaparmakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What would you propose can I do to perform the required zeroing in a
> > deadlock safe manner whilst also ensuring that it cannot happen that a
> > concurrent ->readpage() will cause me to miss a
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:12:50PM +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
I think the below loop would be clearer as a for loop ...
err = 0;
for (nr = 0; nr < nr_pages; nr++, start++) {
if (start == lp_idx) {
pages[nr] = locked_page;
Hi Matthew,
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 15:43 +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:12:50PM +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
>
> I think the below loop would be clearer as a for loop ...
>
> err = 0;
> for (nr = 0; nr < nr_pages; nr++, start++) {
> if
*Sigh*. This thread is heading into the weeds.
I have things I should be doing instead, but since nobody seems to
actually be looking at what the patch *does*, I guess I'll have
to dig into it a bit more...
Yes, licensing issues need to be resolved before a patch can go in.
Yes, code style
El mié, 02-02-2005 a las 17:17 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> There *are* things in OpenBSD, like randomized port assignment (as opposed
> to the linear scan in tcp_v4_get_port()) that would be worth emulating.
> Maybe worry about that first?
>
Completely agreed with you, I was just trying
601 - 605 of 605 matches
Mail list logo
