On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Please discard the atomic update patch altogether; there were enough
>> eyebrows raised that this cannot qualify as a simple cleanup.
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:41:15PM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Is there something serious to add about them? Is it sure that they won't
> work or such? Otherwise I'd suggest just getting them tested.
The original patch as posted is incorrect due to a misreading on my
part of what the flags clearing did. One of the few remotely close
to correct alternatives follows, but I will not endorse it as a
candidate for inclusion, but give it only as an illustration of how
incorrect the originally posted patch was.
===== mm/page_alloc.c 1.63 vs edited =====
--- 1.63/mm/page_alloc.c Tue May 28 16:57:49 2002
+++ edited/mm/page_alloc.c Mon Jun 3 16:27:41 2002
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@
- page->flags &= ~(1<<PG_referenced);
+ __clear_bit(PG_referenced, &page->flags);
if (current->flags & PF_FREE_PAGES)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 07 2002 - 22:00:18 EST