[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191203095502.hw3r33ioax2x4kvt@box>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:55:02 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Thomas Hellström (VMware)
<thomas_os@...pmail.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...are.com, pv-drivers@...are.com,
linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/ttm: Fix vm page protection handling
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 08:54:46AM +0100, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
> From: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
>
> We were using an ugly hack to set the page protection correctly.
> Fix that and instead use vmf_insert_mixed_prot() and / or
> vmf_insert_pfn_prot().
> Also get the default page protection from
> struct vm_area_struct::vm_page_prot rather than using vm_get_page_prot().
> This way we catch modifications done by the vm system for drivers that
> want write-notification.
Hm. Why doesn't your VMA have the right prot flags in the first place? Why
do you need to override them? More context, please.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists