William Lee Irwin III <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> --- ./mm/rmap.c.orig 2005-05-20 01:29:14.066467151 -0700
> +++ ./mm/rmap.c 2005-05-20 01:30:06.620649901 -0700
> @@ -694,7 +694,7 @@
> (*mapcount)--;
> }
>
> - pte_unmap(pte);
> + pte_unmap(pte-1);
> out_unlock:
> spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> }
I must say that I continue to find this approach a bit queazifying.
After some reading of the code I'd agree that yes, it's not possible for us
to get here with `pte' pointing at the first slot of the pte page, but it's
not 100% obvious and it's possible that someone will come along later and
will change things in try_to_unmap_cluster() which cause this unmap to
suddenly do the wrong thing in rare circumstances.
IOW: I'd sleep better at night if we took a temporary and actually unmapped
the thing which we we got back from pte_offset_map().. Am I being silly?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
