From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 433506B00A9 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4ABC83E2.7050300@crca.org.au> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:48:34 +1000 From: Nigel Cunningham MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: No more bits in vm_area_struct's vm_flags. References: <4AB9A0D6.1090004@crca.org.au> <20090924100518.78df6b93.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4ABC80B0.5010100@crca.org.au> <20090925174009.79778649.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090925174009.79778649.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: LKML , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: Hi. KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:34:56 +1000 > Nigel Cunningham wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >>>> I have some code in TuxOnIce that needs a bit too (explicitly mark the >>>> VMA as needing to be atomically copied, for GEM objects), and am not >>>> sure what the canonical way to proceed is. Should a new unsigned long be >>>> added? The difficulty I see with that is that my flag was used in >>>> shmem_file_setup's flags parameter (drm_gem_object_alloc), so that >>>> function would need an extra parameter too.. >>> Hmm, how about adding vma->vm_flags2 ? >> The difficulty there is that some functions pass these flags as arguments. >> > Ah yes. But I wonder some special flags, which is rarey used, can be moved > to vm_flags2... Ah, of course. That makes sense. Regards, Nigel -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org