Re: [patch, 2.6.10-rc2] fix __flush_tlb*() preemption bug on CONFIG_PREEMPT

[Nick Piggin]

Linus Torvalds wrote:

> But yes, it may well make perfect sense to say "we have to hold the page 
> table spinlock in order to flush the tlb". Is that actually true right 
> now?

Can we try not to ratify a rule like that? :)

We're somewhat closeish to being able to entirely remove the ptl, so
it might just get awkward if people think they can rely on that rule.

Of course, _if_ holding the ptl is the nicest way to do things in the
mainline kernel then yeah OK I can't argue with that... but if at all
possible... pretty please?

Thanks,
Nick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/