From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 20:06:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 20:06:42 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:9387 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 20:06:30 -0400 From: "David S. Miller" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15095.14467.446430.966055@pizda.ninka.net> Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:06:27 -0700 (PDT) To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: page_launder() bug In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 13) "Crater Lake" XEmacs Lucid Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > What do you expect me to do? The patch is buggy. It should be reverted. > What's your problem? I think the problem he has is that you are acting as if the patch causes corruptions and will end in failures. This is how you are coming across, at least. Really, your problem with the patch seems to be aesthetic in nature and that the patch is not doing things cleanly at all. To this I will not contest, it surely is not the way to fix this in the end. If my analysis up to this point is correct, the patch should in fact not be reverted. Many patches in Alan's tree are not done in the most aesthetically pleasing way to you, we all know this. But they do solve problems for people. Half of Alan's tree should be reverted if we followed this rule, really. Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com