Re: Further copy_from_user() discussion.

2005-04-15 Thread Vadim Lobanov
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Catalin Marinas wrote: > Vadim Lobanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think I misspoke a bit in my email above. The intent was not to > > eliminate all might_sleep() calls from the copy_from_user() code path; > > but rather juggle the source around a bit so there is only one

Re: Further copy_from_user() discussion.

2005-04-15 Thread Catalin Marinas
Vadim Lobanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I misspoke a bit in my email above. The intent was not to > eliminate all might_sleep() calls from the copy_from_user() code path; > but rather juggle the source around a bit so there is only one > might_sleep() call per each code path. Currently,

Re: Further copy_from_user() discussion.

2005-04-14 Thread Vadim Lobanov
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Catalin Marinas wrote: > Vadim Lobanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2. Would it be possible to eliminate the might_sleep() call in > > copy_from_user()? It seems that, very soon after, the __copy_from_user() > > macro does another might_sleep(), with very few instructions in

Re: Further copy_from_user() discussion.

2005-04-14 Thread Catalin Marinas
Vadim Lobanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2. Would it be possible to eliminate the might_sleep() call in > copy_from_user()? It seems that, very soon after, the __copy_from_user() > macro does another might_sleep(), with very few instructions in between. > But there might be some trick here that I

Further copy_from_user() discussion.

2005-04-13 Thread Vadim Lobanov
Hi, Interested by the recent discussions concerning the copy_from_user() function, I browsed the 2.6.11.7 kernel source, and came up with a few questions. 1. Is there any particular reason why __copy_from_user_ll() is currently EXPORT_SYMBOL()ed for i386? At least none of the in-tree modules curr