I'm wondering if activate_mm() is the right thing to be using in use_mm(); shouldn't this be switch_mm()?
On normal x86, they're synonymous, but for the Xen patches I'm adding a hook which assumes that activate_mm is only used the first time a new mm is used after creation (I have another hook for dealing with dup_mm). I think this use of activate_mm() is the only place where it could be used a second time on an mm. >From a quick look at the other architectures I think this is OK (most simply implement one in terms of the other), but some are doing some subtly different stuff between the two. Thanks, J diff -r 455b71ed4525 fs/aio.c --- a/fs/aio.c Wed Dec 06 13:16:42 2006 -0800 +++ b/fs/aio.c Wed Dec 06 17:17:43 2006 -0800 @@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ static void use_mm(struct mm_struct *mm) * Note that on UML this *requires* PF_BORROWED_MM to be set, otherwise * it won't work. Update it accordingly if you change it here */ - activate_mm(active_mm, mm); + switch_mm(active_mm, mm); task_unlock(tsk); mmdrop(active_mm); - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/