On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:36:02 -0800 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > I'm wondering if activate_mm() is the right thing to be using in > > use_mm(); shouldn't this be switch_mm()? > > > > On normal x86, they're synonymous, but for the Xen patches I'm adding a > > hook which assumes that activate_mm is only used the first time a new mm > > is used after creation (I have another hook for dealing with dup_mm). I > > think this use of activate_mm() is the only place where it could be used > > a second time on an mm. > > > > From a quick look at the other architectures I think this is OK (most > > simply implement one in terms of the other), but some are doing some > > subtly different stuff between the two. > > > > Thanks, > > J > > > > > > > Er, lets try that again: > > diff -r 455b71ed4525 fs/aio.c > --- a/fs/aio.c Wed Dec 06 13:16:42 2006 -0800 > +++ b/fs/aio.c Wed Dec 06 17:17:43 2006 -0800 > @@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ static void use_mm(struct mm_struct *mm) > * Note that on UML this *requires* PF_BORROWED_MM to be set, otherwise > * it won't work. Update it accordingly if you change it here > */ > - activate_mm(active_mm, mm); > + switch_mm(active_mm, mm, tsk); > task_unlock(tsk); > > mmdrop(active_mm); That to me sounds like a reasonable description of the difference between activate_mm() and switch_mm(). And the change appears reasonable as well. But it is a change which the architecture maintainers would need to have a think about, please. - 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/
