[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090108172548.B932.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:31:08 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans
> yes. the change is in the last few lines of the patch. I found out
> that the flags was set as FAULT_FLAG_WRITE no matter what(write/read)
> whence FAULT_FLAG_RETRY is set. the new patch changed the logic which
> only set the flag in the "write" case.
>
> @@ -2713,8 +2720,10 @@ static int do_linear_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct
> {
> pgoff_t pgoff = (((address & PAGE_MASK)
> - vma->vm_start) >> PAGE_SHIFT) + vma->vm_pgoff;
> - unsigned int flags = (write_access ? FAULT_FLAG_WRITE : 0);
>
> + int write = write_access & ~FAULT_FLAG_RETRY;
> + unsigned int flags = (write ? FAULT_FLAG_WRITE : 0);
ok. it seems makes sense.
thanks.
--
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