On 10/8/20 10:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 2:27 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
wrote:
In copy_present_page, after we mark the pte non-writable, we should
check for previous dirty bit updates and make sure we don't lose the dirty
bit on reset.
No, we'll just remove that entirely.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:02 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Here's the first patch anyway. If you actually have a test-case where
> this matters, I guess I need to apply it now..
Actually, I removed the "__page_mapcount()" part of that patch, to
keep it minimal and _only_ do remove the wrprotect tr
[ Just adding Leon to the participants ]
This patch (not attached again, Leon has seen it before) has been
tested for the last couple of weeks for the rdma case, so I have no
problems applying it now, just to keep everybody in the loop.
Linus
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:02 AM Linus To
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 2:27 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
wrote:
>
> In copy_present_page, after we mark the pte non-writable, we should
> check for previous dirty bit updates and make sure we don't lose the dirty
> bit on reset.
No, we'll just remove that entirely.
Do you have a test-case that shows a pr
In copy_present_page, after we mark the pte non-writable, we should
check for previous dirty bit updates and make sure we don't lose the dirty
bit on reset.
Also, avoid marking the pte write-protected again if copy_present_page
already marked it write-protected.
Cc: Peter Xu
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe
