lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-26 20:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans