: :Thinking about this a bit more.... :doesn't each process ahve it's own PTD?, so a process could sleep and :another could run but it would have a differnt PTD :so they could change that PTDE with impunity :because when teh current process runs again it get's its own :ptd back again.. Hmm. Ok, I think you are right. APTDpde is what is being loaded and that points into the user page table directory page, which is per-process. So APTDpde should be per-process. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Possible race in i386/i386/pmap.c:pmap_copy() Matt Dillon
- Re: Possible race in i386/i386/pmap.c:pmap_copy() Matt Dillon
- Re: Possible race in i386/i386/pmap.c:pmap_copy() Julian Elischer
- Re: Possible race in i386/i386/pmap.c:pmap_copy() John Baldwin
- Re: Possible race in i386/i386/pmap.c:pmap_copy() Julian Elischer
- Re: Possible race in i386/i386/pmap.c:pmap_copy() Peter Wemm
- Re: Possible race in i386/i386/pmap.c:pmap_copy() Julian Elischer
- Re: Possible race in i386/i386/pmap.c:pmap_copy() Mike Silbersack
- Re: Possible race in i386/i386/pmap.c:pmap_copy() Matt Dillon
- Re: Possible race in i386/i386/pmap.c:pmap_copy() Julian Elischer