Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:59:22 +0200 Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> Avi Kivity wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Exactly. But it is better to be explicit about it and pass the page >>>> directly like you did before. I hate to make you go back-and-fourth, >>>> but I did not understand the issue completely before. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> btw, the call to gfn_to_page() can happen in page_fault() instead of >>> walk_addr(); that will reduce the amount of error handling, and will >>> simplify the callers to walk_addr() that don't need the page. >>> >>> >>> >> Note further that all this doesn't obviate the need for follow_page() >> (or get_user_pages_inatomic()); we still need something in update_pte() >> for the demand paging case. >> > > Please review -mm's mm/pagewalk.c for suitability. > > If is is unsuitable but repairable then please cc Matt Mackall > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on the review. > >
The "no locks are taken" comment is very worrying. We need accurate results. Getting pte_t's in the callbacks is a little too low level for kvm's use (which wants struct page pointers) but of course that easily handled in a kvm wrapper. I'd prefer an atomic version of get_user_pages(), but if pagewalk is fixed to take the necessary locks, it will do. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
