[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out.

To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out.
From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:20:23 -0200 (BRST)
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Fake-Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
In-Reply-To: <m1hero1c8o.fsf@frodo.biederman.org>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mm-archive@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
Sender: Rik van Riel <riel@nl.linux.org>

On 21 Nov 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

> We only hold a ref count for the duration of swap_out_mm.
> Not for the duration of the value in swap_mm.

In that case, why can't we just take the next mm from
init_mm and just "roll over" our mm to the back of the
list once we're done with it ?

Removing magic is good ;)

regards,

Rik
-- 
DMCA, SSSCA, W3C?  Who cares?  http://thefreeworld.net/

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out.
  - From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)

References:
- Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out.
  - From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)

Prev by Date: Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out.
Next by Date: Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out.
Prev by thread: Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out.
Next by thread: Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread