[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45776D54.7030409@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:24:36 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC] use of activate_mm in fs/aio.c:use_mm()?
I'm wondering if activate_mm() is the right thing to be using in
use_mm(); shouldn't this be switch_mm()?
On normal x86, they're synonymous, but for the Xen patches I'm adding a
hook which assumes that activate_mm is only used the first time a new mm
is used after creation (I have another hook for dealing with dup_mm). I
think this use of activate_mm() is the only place where it could be used
a second time on an mm.
>From a quick look at the other architectures I think this is OK (most
simply implement one in terms of the other), but some are doing some
subtly different stuff between the two.
Thanks,
J
diff -r 455b71ed4525 fs/aio.c
--- a/fs/aio.c Wed Dec 06 13:16:42 2006 -0800
+++ b/fs/aio.c Wed Dec 06 17:17:43 2006 -0800
@@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ static void use_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
* Note that on UML this *requires* PF_BORROWED_MM to be set, otherwise
* it won't work. Update it accordingly if you change it here
*/
- activate_mm(active_mm, mm);
+ switch_mm(active_mm, mm);
task_unlock(tsk);
mmdrop(active_mm);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists