On 06/06/2017 04:34 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 06/06/17 09:25, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 01:44:32PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>> As far as I know, not all CONFIG_MMU=y architectures provide
>>> set_memory_ro()/set_memory_rw(). You need to provide fallback f
On 06/06/17 15:08, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Igor Stoppa wrote:
+struct pmalloc_node {
+ struct hlist_node nodes_list;
+ atomic_t used_words;
+ unsigned int total_words;
+ __PMALLOC_ALIGNED align_t data[];
+};
>>>
>>> Is this __PMALLOC_ALIGNED needed? Why not use "lon
Igor Stoppa wrote:
> >> +struct pmalloc_node {
> >> + struct hlist_node nodes_list;
> >> + atomic_t used_words;
> >> + unsigned int total_words;
> >> + __PMALLOC_ALIGNED align_t data[];
> >> +};
> >
> > Is this __PMALLOC_ALIGNED needed? Why not use "long" and "BITS_PER_LONG" ?
>
> In an earlie
Hi,
thanks a lot for the review. My answers are in-line below.
I have rearranged your comments because I wasn't sure how to reply to
them inlined.
On 06/06/17 07:44, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Igor Stoppa wrote:
[...]
> As far as I know, not all CONFIG_MMU=y architectures provide
> set_memory_ro()/se
On 06/06/17 09:25, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 01:44:32PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[..]
>> As far as I know, not all CONFIG_MMU=y architectures provide
>> set_memory_ro()/set_memory_rw(). You need to provide fallback for
>> architectures which do not provide set_memory_ro
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 01:44:32PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Igor Stoppa wrote:
> > +int pmalloc_protect_pool(struct pmalloc_pool *pool)
> > +{
> > + struct pmalloc_node *node;
> > +
> > + if (!pool)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + mutex_lock(&pool->nodes_list_mutex);
> > + hlist_f
Igor Stoppa wrote:
> +int pmalloc_protect_pool(struct pmalloc_pool *pool)
> +{
> + struct pmalloc_node *node;
> +
> + if (!pool)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + mutex_lock(&pool->nodes_list_mutex);
> + hlist_for_each_entry(node, &pool->nodes_list_head, nodes_list) {
> +
7 matches
Mail list logo