RE: RFC: Cleanup / small fixes to hugetlb fault handling

["Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>]

David Gibson wrote on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:05 PM
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 11:44:52AM -0700, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > David Gibson wrote on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:49 PM
> > > +int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > +		  unsigned long address, int write_access)
> > > +{
> > > +	pte_t *ptep;
> > > +	pte_t entry;
> > > +
> > > +	ptep = huge_pte_alloc(mm, address);
> > > +	if (! ptep)
> > > +		/* OOM */
> > > +		return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> > > +
> > > +	entry = *ptep;
> > > +
> > > +	if (pte_none(entry))
> > > +		return hugetlb_no_page(mm, vma, address, ptep);
> > > +
> > > +	/* we could get here if another thread instantiated the pte
> > > +	 * before the test above */
> > > +
> > > +	return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> > >  }
> > 
> > Are you sure about the last return?  Looks like a typo to me, if *ptep
> > is present, it should return VM_FAULT_MINOR.
> 
> Oops, yes, thinko.  Corrected patch shortly.

While you at it, I think it would be preferable that the first return be
VM_FAULT_OOM, your thoughts?

- Ken

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/