Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Mar 2005 03:25:16 -0400 | From | Mauricio Lin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] A new entry for /proc |
| |
Hi Hugh,
How about map an unmap each pte?
I mean remove the pte++ and use pte_offset_map for each incremented address and then pte_unmap. So each incremented address is an index to get the next pte via pte_offset_map.
BR,
Mauricio Lin.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:07:15 +0000 (GMT), Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Mauricio Lin wrote: > > Does anyone know if the place I put pte_unmap is logical and safe > > after several pte increments? > > The place is logical and safe, but it's still not quite right. > You should have found several examples of loops having the same > problem, and what do they do? .... > > > pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, address); > > address &= ~PMD_MASK; > > end = address + size; > > if (end > PMD_SIZE) > > end = PMD_SIZE; > > do { > > pte_t page = *pte; > > > > address += PAGE_SIZE; > > pte++; > > if (pte_none(page) || (!pte_present(page))) > > continue; > > *rss += PAGE_SIZE; > > } while (address < end); > > pte_unmap(pte); > > pte_unmap(pte - 1); > > which works because it's a do {} while () loop which has certainly > incremented pte at least once. But some people probably loathe that > style, and would prefer to save orig_pte then pte_unmap(orig_pte). > > Hugh > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |