On Fri, 2023-09-22 at 11:55 +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote: > On 22/09/2023 10:55, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-09-22 at 11:51 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Fri, 2023-09-22 at 10:19 +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote: > > > > > So maybe that works - perhaps with a big comment? > > > > Ack. Will add this to the patch and run it through its paces. > > > > > > > We can also just get rid of it entirely: > > > > > And then we can remove all the skas0 stuff, including init_thread_regs > > and all. > > > > Seems the cost would be basically that we now pagefault everything > > that's used between fork() and exec()? But is that so much and so > > important? > > Needs testing :)
Yes. I sent a patch just now, works for me. > Let's get the PREEMPT out of the door first. Dunno. It has a conflict, but I think it's kind of a bugfix, the whole mm creation copying from 'current' seems fishy when you consider clone(CLONE_VM). johannes _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
