lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] i386: fix vmalloc_sync_all() for Xen
>I think it would be better to separately test whether the vmalloc 
>mapping is present in the init_mm and skip the syncing loop in that
>case, rather than this somewhat convoluted logic to overload the test in
>vmalloc_sync_one.

That's what the x86-64 code does. When I wrote this originally, I tried
to keep the pre-existing logic as much as possible, so I split out
vmalloc_sync_one() by mostly moving existing code. I certainly agree
that this has room for cleaning up (and then possibly including unification
with x86-64).

>>>> This is a replacement of the BUG_ON() that an earlier patch from you
>>>> removed: Failure of vmalloc_sync_one() must happen on the first
>>>> entry or never, and this is what is being checked for here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Could you add a comment?
>>>
>>
>> Sure, though there was none originally, and the intention seemed
>> quite clear to me.
>
>Well, looks to me like vmalloc_sync_one can only return NULL iff the
>vmalloc mapping is absent in init_mm, so that's going to be invariant

Correct.

>with respect to any other pgd you pass in. So I don't think the BUG_ON
>will ever fire, and it's unclear what actual logical property it's
>testing for.

My point of adding the BUG_ON() is that in vmalloc_sync_all() it is not
clear that vmalloc_sync_one() can fail only due to init_mm's page table
not being appropriately populated. So yes, this BUG_ON() is not
expected to ever fire - but isn't that a property of all BUG_ON()'s?

Jan



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-20 09:01    [W:0.044 / U:1.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site