Re: [patch] mm: tiny-shmem fix lor, mmap_sem vs i_mutex

[Matt Mackall]

On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 12:29 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > in 7 days that's about 7000 random bootups, 20% of which had TINY_SHMEM 
> > enabled, half 32-bit, half 64-bit x86. It did not blow up in any way 
> > that would have prevented the kernel from building its next random 
> > version from within itself and it did not produce any kernel messages 
> > with various random kernel debug, compile and boot options.
> >   
> 
> Does anything in that workload actually use shared memory?

[adding Dave]

For the record, Hugh tracked down the history of this bug and it went
something like this:

- I forked shmem.c and trimmed it down, keeping the function in question
intact
- Dave Hansen made divergent changes to shmem and tiny-shmem for reasons
that aren't immediately obvious
- Al Viro fixed a resultant dput bug
- Nick fixed a resultant deadlock bug by undoing the divergence

As far as Hugh and I can see, there was no reason for the divergent
change. Really, we should probably re-unify the files to prevent such
further confusion.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

--
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/