Re: [RFC/PATCH] mm/futex: Fix futex writes on archs with SW trackingof dirty & young

From: Darren Hart
Date: Wed Jul 20 2011 - 10:39:46 EST


Obviously no objection from the futex side of things, looks good. Couple
nits on the function comment:

On 07/18/2011 09:29 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
...
> -/**
> +/*
> + * fixup_user_fault() - manually resolve a user page fault

s/ fault/ fault/

> + * @tsk: the task_struct to use for page fault accounting, or
> + * NULL if faults are not to be recorded.
> + * @mm: mm_struct of target mm
> + * @address: user address
> + * @fault_flags:flags to pass down to handle_mm_fault()
> + *
> + * This is meant to be called in the specific scenario where for
> + * locking reasons we try to access user memory in atomic context
> + * (within a pagefault_disable() section), this returns -EFAULT,
> + * and we want to resolve the user fault before trying again.
> + *
> + * Typically this is meant to be used by the futex code.
> + *
> + * The main difference with get_user_pages() is that this function
> + * will unconditionally call handle_mm_fault() which will in turn
> + * perform all the necessary SW fixup of the dirty and young bits
> + * in the PTE, while handle_mm_fault() only guarantees to update
> + * these in the struct page.
> + *
> + * This is important for some architectures where those bits also
> + * gate the access permission to the page because their are

s/their/they/

Thanks,

--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
--
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/