On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:26:13PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Doing the right patch ordering would have avoided this patch and allow > better review.
I didn't actually write this patch myself. This did it instead: s/anon_vma_lock/anon_vma_sem/ s/i_mmap_lock/i_mmap_sem/ s/locks/sems/ s/spinlock_t/struct rw_semaphore/ so it didn't look a big deal to redo it indefinitely. The right patch ordering isn't necessarily the one that reduces the total number of lines in the patchsets. The mmu-notifier-core is already converged and can go in. The rest isn't converged at all... nearly nobody commented on the other part (the few comments so far were negative), so there's no good reason to delay indefinitely what is already converged, given it's already feature complete for certain users of the code. My patch ordering looks more natural to me. What is finished goes in, the rest is orthogonal anyway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
