Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thank you Ingo and Andrew for the comments. I will take a look into it 
> ASAP and updates it here.

Note, my objection wasnt a hard NAK - just an observation. If all things 
considered Andrew still favors the VM_FAULT_RETRY approach then that's 
fine too i guess.

It's just that a quick look gave me the feeling of a retry flag tacked on 
to an existing codepath [and all the micro-overhead and complexity that 
this brings], instead of a clean refactoring of pagefault handling 
functionality into a higher MM level retry loop.

So the alternative has to be looked at and rejected because it's 
technically inferior - not because it's more difficult to implement. 
(which it certainly is)

	Ingo
--
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/