On 16/2/07 19:26, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Keir Fraser wrote:
>> Hmmm... Actually looks like a bunch of architectures do lazy sync of the
>> vmalloc area, although neither ia64 nor powerpc does so. However, all
>> current users of the alloc_vm_area() function would be okay since none of
>> the other lazy-syncing architectures are supported by Xen.
>>
>
> Well, assuming that alloc_vm_area() has some non-Xen use, the right
> thing is for archs to export vmalloc_sync_all(), and just use that from
> common code.
It has no other users right now and get_vm_area_sync() would be a
better-named and more generically useful function than alloc_vm_area(). But
yes, to be done properly it does require vmalloc_sync_all() to be defined by
all architectures (even if that's BUG() and implement-properly-on-demand).
get_vm_area_sync(), partnered with existing remove_vm_area(), just seems
much smaller and neater than adding four new functions with a more complex
usage: alloc_vm_area, {lock,unlock}_vm_area, and free_vm_area. Maybe keeping
free_vm_area() too makes sense as its interface is more neatly symmetrical
to that of get_vm_area().
-- Keir
-
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]
