From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ppp-217-133-42-200.cust-adsl.tiscali.it ([217.133.42.200]:56452 "EHLO dualathlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264767AbUEYFJo (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 01:09:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 07:09:37 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc64: Fix possible race with set_pte on a present PTE Message-ID: <20040525050937.GZ29378@dualathlon.random> References: <1085371988.15281.38.camel@gaston> <1085373839.14969.42.camel@gaston> <20040525034326.GT29378@dualathlon.random> <20040525042054.GU29378@dualathlon.random> <20040525045958.GY29378@dualathlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040525045958.GY29378@dualathlon.random> To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel list , Ingo Molnar , Ben LaHaise , linux-mm@kvack.org, Architectures Group List-ID: > all. However I wonder what happens for PROT_WRITE? How can you make a I understood now how it works with PROT_WRITE too, it's not FOR but URE being tweaked together with ACCESSED. This has been a very big misread I did when I was doing alpha stuff some year ago. that's why I was so confident it was only setting it during the first page fault and never clearing it again. Sounds good that it can be emulated fully, I thought it wasn't even feasible at all. thanks a lot for pointing out this huge mistake.