Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3

Andrew Morton
2009-01-26T19:31:16Z

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:09:59 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

OK, thanks. It's actually page_fault-retry-with-nopage_retry.patch
which got those things confused, and then confused me. I'll go address
that in the other thread..