Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:09:59 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3 |
| |
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.
Linus
| |