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


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-26 20:15    [W:0.034 / U:21.420 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site