Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:40:05 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [patch, 2.6.10-rc2] fix __flush_tlb*() preemption bug on CONFIG_PREEMPT |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |