Re: [kerneloops] regression in 2.6.27 wrt "lock_page" and the"hwclock" program

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> do you agree with the changelog and can i add your Signed-off-by ?

Sure. One thing I'd still like to see is that crazy "again" vs "survive" 
mess for x86-64 vs x86-32. I think the patch as posted will cause a new 
warning on x86-32 due to "unused label 'again'" or similar.

It's totally insane that we have two different versions of the oom 
handling for x86. I don't know why we do that, it's probably historical, 
and I _suspect_ that the 32-bit one has gotten a lot more testing.

And not just because there have been more of the 32-bit kernels around, 
but also because low-memory situations are probably more common on 32-bit 
setups. But I dunno. 

So I would suggest you just pick the x86-32 version of that oom handling 
thing too. Unless you know some deep reason why the 64-bit one would be 
superior.

		Linus
--
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/