Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: powerpc ptlock comments
From: Hugh Dickins
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 02:31:28 EST
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > Update comments (only) on page_table_lock and mmap_sem in arch/powerpc.
> > /*
> > - * No need to use ldarx/stdcx here because all who
> > - * might be updating the pte will hold the
> > - * page_table_lock
> > + * No need to use ldarx/stdcx here
> > */
> If you're going to remove the because clause you might as well remove
> the whole comment. What you have left is either redundant or
> mystifying (according to the depth of knowledge of the reader). And
> in fact I don't think I could now say why we don't need an atomic
> update sequence there, so I would appreciate something that updates
> the "because" part.
All I'm doing here is tidying up by removing the no-longer-appropriate
reference to page_table_lock. As my snipped patch comment said:
> Update comments (only) on page_table_lock and mmap_sem in arch/powerpc.
> Removed the comment on page_table_lock from hash_huge_page: since it's
> no longer taking page_table_lock itself, it's irrelevant whether others
> are; but how it is safe (even against huge file truncation?) I can't say.
I'd appreciate something that updates the "because" part too, but don't
know the answer. That other patch will need to come from your end - Ben?
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/