Sorry, it's really hard to read your interspersed comments. Perhaps I
need to switch on some colour option when reading your mails, but I've
never found the need for it before. Please, use a blank line above
and below your comments to help us locate them and read them, thanks.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 September 2005 14:00, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > So far as I can see (I may have missed it), you really don't need to
> > change from the write boolean
>
> > (perhaps -1 for exec in one arch??)
> ? Not understood this part, ignoring it?
> Maybe you mean "except one arch, x86_64, which supports exec protection?"
No, I meant the current code uses "0" for read fault, "1" for write fault,
and (in a quick search) only found one architecture (I forget which,
certainly not x86_64) which might have been interested to pass down
a different value to handle_mm_fault to distinguish execution fault:
for which I was suggesting to use "-1", rather than change everywhere.
Though now I'm doubting there was any such case at all.
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/
[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]
| |
 |