Re: Multi-Threaded fork() correctness on Linux 2.4 & 2.6

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> Hmm. But we do hold the mmap_sem for writing, and we flush before we 
> release it, so it should still be ok. The page fault case needs to get it 
> for reading anyway.
> 
> Yeah, the page_table_lock might make more sense, but I think the mmap_sem 
> thing works equally well.

Yes, you're both ahead of me: thank you for working that out: no issue.

Hugh
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Multi-Threaded fork() correctness on Linux 2.4 & 2.6
    • From: Smarduch Mario-CMS063 <[email protected]>
  • Re: Multi-Threaded fork() correctness on Linux 2.4 & 2.6
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
  • Re: Multi-Threaded fork() correctness on Linux 2.4 & 2.6
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: Multi-Threaded fork() correctness on Linux 2.4 & 2.6
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
  • Re: Multi-Threaded fork() correctness on Linux 2.4 & 2.6
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), )
• Next by Date: Re: NUMA mempolicy /proc code in mainline shouldn't have been merged
• Previous by thread: Re: Multi-Threaded fork() correctness on Linux 2.4 & 2.6
• Next by thread: RE: Multi-Threaded fork() correctness on Linux 2.4 & 2.6
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]