[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090126113026.4d9682e3.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:30:26 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: npiggin@...e.de, mingo@...e.hu, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, travis@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, arjan@...radead.org, hpa@...or.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:09:59 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > + write = error_code & PF_WRITE;
> >
> > What's going on here? We set `error_code' to PF_WRITE, which is some
> > x86-specific thing.
>
> No. We set "write" to non-zero if it was a write fault.
>
> > > fault = handle_mm_fault(mm, vma, address, write);
> >
> > and then pass it into handle_mm_fault(), which is expecting a bunch of
> > flags in the FAULT_FLAG_foo domain.
>
> No. "handle_mm_fault()" takes an integer that is non-zero if it's a write,
> zero if it's a read. That's how it has _always_ worked.
>
> I don't see where you find that FAULT_FLAG_foo thing. That's much deeper
> down, when people do things like
>
> unsigned int flags = FAULT_FLAG_NONLINEAR |
> (write_access ? FAULT_FLAG_WRITE : 0);
>
> based on that whole "write_access" flag.
>
OK, thanks. It's actually page_fault-retry-with-nopage_retry.patch
which got those things confused, and then confused me. I'll go address
that in the other thread..
--
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