On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:02:14PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:31:21 +0100
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Index: linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
> > ===
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memory.c
> > +++ linux-2.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> now that's scary - applying this on top of your
> lock-the-page-in-the-fault-handler patches gives:
This is why you should never use plain "patch" with defaultl arguments in
a script (and probably not even from an interactive command line).
I've sa
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:31:21 +0100
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Index: linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
> ===
> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memory.c
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
> @@ -1664,6 +1664,15 @@ gotten:
> unlock:
> pte_unmap_u
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 03:34:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 03:20:38 -0800 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > ===
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memory.c
> > > +++ linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
> > > @@
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 03:20:38 -0800 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ===
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memory.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -1676,6 +1676,17 @@ gotten:
> > unlock:
> > pte_unmap_unlock(page_table
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 03:20:38AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> (cc's reestablished yet again)
>
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:04:29 +0100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OK, this is how we can plug that hole, leveraging my
> > previous patches to lock page over do_no_page.
> >
> > I'
(cc's reestablished yet again)
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:04:29 +0100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, this is how we can plug that hole, leveraging my
> previous patches to lock page over do_no_page.
>
> I'm pretty sure the PageLocked invariant is correct.
>
>
> --
> Fix msync data lo
7 matches
Mail list logo