>
> > Do you want to know why last night I added a spinlock around mmget/mmput
> > without thinking twice? Simply because mm->count was an atomic_t while it
> > doesn't need to be an atomic_t in first place.
>
> Agreed.
Incorrect, see my previous email. It may not be strictly necessary right
now due to us probably holding the kernel lock everywhere, but it is
conceptually necessary, and it is _not_ an argument for a spinlock.
The /proc code has to be fixed, but the easy fix is to just revert to the
old one as far as I can see. I shouldn't have accepted the /proc patches
in the first place, and I'm sorry I did.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/