On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > The difference with #v11 is a different implementation of mm_lock that > guarantees handling signals in O(N). It's also more lowlatency friendly.
Ok. So the rest of the issues remains unaddressed? I am glad that we finally settled on the locking. But now I will have to clean this up, address the remaining issues, sequence the patches right, provide docs, handle the merging issue etc etc? I have seen no detailed review of my patches that you include here. We are going down the same road as we had to go with the OOM patches where David Rientjes and me had to deal with the issues you raised? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
