From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
This may be a bit controversial but it does not seem to
make sense to use the update_mmu_cache macro when we reuse
the page. We are only fiddling around with the protections,
the dirty and accessed bits.
With the call to update_mmu_cache the way of using the macros
would be different from mprotect() and page_mkclean(). I'd
rather have everything work the same way. If this breaks on some
arches then also mprotect and page_mkclean() are broken.
The use of mprotect() is rare, we may have breakage in some
arches that we just have not seen yet.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
---
mm/memory.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memory.c 2006-06-13 10:33:21.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6/mm/memory.c 2006-06-13 10:36:31.000000000 +0200
@@ -1477,7 +1477,6 @@ static int do_wp_page(struct mm_struct *
entry = pte_mkyoung(orig_pte);
entry = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(entry), vma);
ptep_set_access_flags(vma, address, page_table, entry, 1);
- update_mmu_cache(vma, address, entry);
lazy_mmu_prot_update(entry);
ret |= VM_FAULT_WRITE;
goto unlock;
@@ -2263,7 +2262,6 @@ static inline int handle_pte_fault(struc
entry = pte_mkyoung(entry);
if (!pte_same(old_entry, entry)) {
ptep_set_access_flags(vma, address, pte, entry, write_access);
- update_mmu_cache(vma, address, entry);
lazy_mmu_prot_update(entry);
} else {
/*
-
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]
