On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 19:34 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Ben,
>
> I had something like the attached in mind, although it might be more
> beneficial to do the actual refcounting in drivers that needs it. Atomic
> incs and decs are expensive, but I'm not sure how expensive relative to
> funct
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 11/09/2010 04:03 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 19:34 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ben,
>>>
>>> I had something like the attached in mind, although it might be more
>>> beneficial to do the actual refcount
On 11/09/2010 04:03 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 19:34 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>
>> Ben,
>>
>> I had something like the attached in mind, although it might be more
>> beneficial to do the actual refcounting in drivers that needs it. Atomic
>> incs and decs are expensive,
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 11/09/2010 04:03 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 19:34 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ben,
>>>
>>> I had something like the attached in mind, although it might be more
>>> beneficial to do the actual refcount
On 11/09/2010 04:03 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 19:34 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
Ben,
I had something like the attached in mind, although it might be more
beneficial to do the actual refcounting in drivers that needs it. Atomic
incs and decs are expensive, but I'm not su
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 19:34 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Ben,
>
> I had something like the attached in mind, although it might be more
> beneficial to do the actual refcounting in drivers that needs it. Atomic
> incs and decs are expensive, but I'm not sure how expensive relative to
> funct
Ben,
I had something like the attached in mind, although it might be more
beneficial to do the actual refcounting in drivers that needs it. Atomic
incs and decs are expensive, but I'm not sure how expensive relative to
function pointer calls.
Patch is only compile-tested
/Thomas
On 11/04/20
On 11/04/2010 01:03 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> From: Ben Skeggs
>
> If the driver kmaps an object userspace is expecting to be mapped, the
> unmap would have called down into the drivers io_unreserve() function
> and potentially unmapped the pages from its BARs (for example) and they'd
> no longer be
Ben,
I had something like the attached in mind, although it might be more
beneficial to do the actual refcounting in drivers that needs it. Atomic
incs and decs are expensive, but I'm not sure how expensive relative to
function pointer calls.
Patch is only compile-tested
/Thomas
On 11/04/
From: Ben Skeggs
If the driver kmaps an object userspace is expecting to be mapped, the
unmap would have called down into the drivers io_unreserve() function
and potentially unmapped the pages from its BARs (for example) and they'd
no longer be accessible for the userspace mapping.
Signed-off-by
On 11/04/2010 01:03 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
From: Ben Skeggs
If the driver kmaps an object userspace is expecting to be mapped, the
unmap would have called down into the drivers io_unreserve() function
and potentially unmapped the pages from its BARs (for example) and they'd
no longer be accessibl
From: Ben Skeggs
If the driver kmaps an object userspace is expecting to be mapped, the
unmap would have called down into the drivers io_unreserve() function
and potentially unmapped the pages from its BARs (for example) and they'd
no longer be accessible for the userspace mapping.
Signed-off-by
12 matches
Mail list logo
