> On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 09:47 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 02:21 +0300, Anton Salikhmetov wrote:
>
> > > +static void vma_wrprotect(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long addr = vma->vm_start;
> > > + pgd_t *pgd = pgd_offset(vma->vm_mm, addr);
> > > +
> > > + while (addr < vma->vm_end) {
> > > + unsigned long next = pgd_addr_end(addr, vma->vm_end);
> > > +
> > > + if (!pgd_none_or_clear_bad(pgd))
> > > + vma_wrprotect_pgd_range(vma, pgd, addr, next);
> > > +
> > > + ++pgd;
> > > + addr = next;
> > > + }
> > > +}
> >
> > I think you want to pass start, end here too, you might not need to
> > sweep the whole vma.
>
> Also, it still doesn't make sense to me why we'd not need to walk the
> rmap, it is all the same file after all.
It's the same file, but not the same memory map. It basically depends
on how you define msync:
a) sync _file_ on region defined by this mmap/start/end-address
b) sync _memory_region_ defined by start/end-address
b) is a perfectly fine definition, and it's consistent with what this
code does. The fact that POSIX probably implies a) (in a rather
poorly defined way) doesn't make much difference, I think.
Miklos
--
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/
