--- Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 02:58:58PM -0800, Asang K Dani wrote:
> > --- Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 10:42:34PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie
> wrote:
> > > > No, because then you'd be skipping the updatepage() call if
>
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 02:58:58PM -0800, Asang K Dani wrote:
> --- Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 10:42:34PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > > No, because then you'd be skipping the updatepage() call if we
> > took a
> > > fault mid-copy after copying some
--- Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 10:42:34PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > No, because then you'd be skipping the updatepage() call if we
> took a
> > fault mid-copy after copying some data. That would imply you had
> > dirtied the page cache without an up
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 10:42:34PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> No, because then you'd be skipping the updatepage() call if we took a
> fault mid-copy after copying some data. That would imply you had
> dirtied the page cache without an updatepage().
>
> The current behaviour should just r
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 08:51:37AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:29:48PM -0800, Asang K Dani wrote:
>
> The code is buggy as far as I can see. copy_from_user doesn't return the
> number of bytes copied, but the number of bytes not copied when an error
> occurs (or 0
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:29:48PM -0800, Asang K Dani wrote:
> hi everyone,
>I was trying to understand following piece of code in
> 'generic_file_read' (mm/filemap.c) for 2.2.18 kernel. The code
> segment
> is as follows:
>
>
6 matches
Mail list logo