On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Sorry, I realise I still didn't get this through my head yet (and also > have not seen your patch recently). So I don't know exactly what you > are doing...
The last version was posted here: http://marc.info/?l=kvm-devel&m=120321732521533&w=2 > But why does _anybody_ (why does Christoph's patches) need to invalidate > when they are going to be more permissive? This should be done lazily by > the driver, I would have thought. This can be done lazily by the driver yes. The place where I've an invalidate_pages in mprotect however can also become less permissive. It's simpler to invalidate always and it's not guaranteed the secondary mmu page fault is capable of refreshing the spte across a writeprotect fault. In the future this can be changed to mprotect_pages though, so no page fault will happen in the secondary mmu. -- 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/
