Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] mm: arch do_page_fault() vs in_atomic()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Peter,
This patchset looks pretty nice to me.

Acked-by: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

One minor nit:

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
In light of the recent pagefault and filemap_copy_from_user work I've
gone through all the arch pagefault handlers to make sure the inc_preempt_count() 'feature' works as expected.

Several sections of code (including the new filemap_copy_from_user) rely
on the fact that faults do not take locks under increased preempt count.

arch/x86_64 - good
arch/powerpc - good
arch/cris - fixed
arch/i386 - good
arch/parisc - fixed
arch/sh - good
arch/sparc - good
arch/s390 - good
arch/m68k - fixed
arch/ppc - good
arch/alpha - fixed
arch/mips - good
arch/sparc64 - good
arch/ia64 - good
arch/arm - fixed
arch/um - NA

um does have a fault handler (in kernel/trap.c), but it gets the
in_atomic check correct.

Thanks for doing this.

Nick

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -
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]
  Powered by Linux