Re: [PATCH 03/10] hugetlb: redefine hugepage copy functions

[Mel Gorman]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:15:44PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> >> +static void copy_gigantic_page(struct page *dst, struct page *src)
> >> +{
> >> +	int i;
> >> +	struct hstate *h = page_hstate(src);
> >> +	struct page *dst_base = dst;
> >> +	struct page *src_base = src;
> >> +
> >> +	for (i = 0; i < pages_per_huge_page(h); ) {
> >> +		cond_resched();
> >
> > Should this function not have a might_sleep() check too?
> 
> cond_resched() implies might_sleep I believe. I think
> that answers the earlier question too becuse that function
> calls this.
> 

You're right, cond_resched() calls might_sleep so the additional check
is redundant.

> 	/*
> >
> > Other than the removal of the might_sleep() check, this looks ok too.
> 
> Can I assume an Ack?
> 

Yes.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/