Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > +	write = error_code & PF_WRITE;
> 
> What's going on here?  We set `error_code' to PF_WRITE, which is some
> x86-specific thing.

No. We set "write" to non-zero if it was a write fault.

> >  	fault = handle_mm_fault(mm, vma, address, write);
> 
> and then pass it into handle_mm_fault(), which is expecting a bunch of
> flags in the FAULT_FLAG_foo domain.

No. "handle_mm_fault()" takes an integer that is non-zero if it's a write, 
zero if it's a read. That's how it has _always_ worked.

I don't see where you find that FAULT_FLAG_foo thing. That's much deeper 
down, when people do things like

        unsigned int flags = FAULT_FLAG_NONLINEAR |
                                (write_access ? FAULT_FLAG_WRITE : 0);

based on that whole "write_access" flag.

		Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/