On 04/24, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > So, what do you think about the patch below? It is probably fine in any
> > case,
> > but is there any "strong" reason to follow the gup's behaviour and forbid
> >
Hi Hugh,
Sorry for late reply. First of all, to avoid the confusion, I think the
patch is fine.
When I saw this patch I decided that uprobes should be updated accordingly,
but I just realized that I do not understand what should I write in the
changelog.
On 04/04, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> +
On 02/21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> afaict its needed because struct signal_struct and struct sighand_struct
> include a wait_queue_head_t. The inclusion seems to come through
> completion.h, but afaict we don't actually need to include completion.h
> because all we have is a pointer to a completio
On 02/21, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 02/21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > afaict its needed because struct signal_struct and struct sighand_struct
> > include a wait_queue_head_t. The inclusion seems to come through
> > completion.h, but afaict we don't ac
