On 21/12/2018 19:23, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:19 AM Igor Stoppa wrote:
On 20/12/2018 20:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I think you're causing yourself more headaches by implementing this "op"
function.
I probably misinterpreted the initial criticism on my first pat
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:19 AM Igor Stoppa wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20/12/2018 20:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> > I think you're causing yourself more headaches by implementing this "op"
> > function.
>
> I probably misinterpreted the initial criticism on my first patchset,
> about duplication. Somehow
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:19:15PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 20/12/2018 20:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > I think you're causing yourself more headaches by implementing this "op"
> > function.
>
> I probably misinterpreted the initial criticism on my first patchset, about
> duplication. Someho
On 20/12/2018 20:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I think you're causing yourself more headaches by implementing this "op"
function.
I probably misinterpreted the initial criticism on my first patchset,
about duplication. Somehow, I'm still thinking to the endgame of having
higher-level functi
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:33:30PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> +void *__wr_op(unsigned long dst, unsigned long src, __kernel_size_t len,
> + enum wr_op_type op)
> +{
> + temporary_mm_state_t prev;
> + unsigned long offset;
> + unsigned long wr_poking_addr;
> +
> + /* Confi
Hi,
On 20/12/2018 19:20, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
Hello Igor,
+/*
+ * The following two variables are statically allocated by the linker
+ * script at the the boundaries of the memory region (rounded up to
+ * multiples of PAGE_SIZE) reserved for __wr_after_init.
+ */
+extern long __start
Hello Igor,
> +/*
> + * The following two variables are statically allocated by the linker
> + * script at the the boundaries of the memory region (rounded up to
> + * multiples of PAGE_SIZE) reserved for __wr_after_init.
> + */
> +extern long __start_wr_after_init;
> +extern long __end_wr_after
On 19/12/2018 23:33, Igor Stoppa wrote:
+ if (WARN_ONCE(op >= WR_OPS_NUMBER, "Invalid WR operation.") ||
+ WARN_ONCE(!is_wr_after_init(dst, len), "Invalid WR range."))
+ return (void *)dst;
+
+ offset = dst - (unsigned long)&__start_wr_after_init;
I forgot t
Architecture-specific implementation of the core write rare
operation.
The implementation is based on code from Andy Lutomirski and Nadav Amit
for patching the text on x86 [here goes reference to commits, once merged]
The modification of write protected data is done through an alternate
mapping o
9 matches
Mail list logo
