Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 12:50 +0000, moreau francis wrote:
>>
>> lower vma: 0x2aaae000 -> 0x2aaaf000
>> upper vma: 0x2aaaf000 -> 0x2aab2000
>
> that is the remaining VMA, not the new one; we trigger this code:
>
> /* Does it split the last one? */
> last = find_vma(mm, end);
> if (last && end > last->vm_start) {
> int error = split_vma(mm, last, end, 1);
> if (error)
> return error;
> }
>
> So, since its the last VMA that needs to be split (there is only one),
> the new VMA is constructed before the old one. Like so:
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> BBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>
> Then you proceed closing, in this case the new one: B.
Sorry but I don't understand why B is said to be the new one. OK
I can see why from the bit of code you pointed out but from a
logical point of view (ok maybe be me only) I'm unmapping 'BBBB'
segment, so 'BBBB' is going to be destroyed and therefore A is
the new one. Thereferore I would expect close(B), open(A)...
no ?
Francis
___________________________________________________________________________
Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions !
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur
Yahoo! Questions/Réponses
http://fr.answers.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/
