Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:35:30 +0200 Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> 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. >> > > take down_read(mm->mmap_sem) before calling it.. > > You have to do that anyway for its results to be meaningful in the caller. > Ditto get_user_pages(). > >
Yes, but what about the page table locks? follow_page() is much more thorough. -- 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
