Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:37:22 +0100 (BST) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3 |
| |
Sorry, it's really hard to read your interspersed comments. Perhaps I need to switch on some colour option when reading your mails, but I've never found the need for it before. Please, use a blank line above and below your comments to help us locate them and read them, thanks.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Blaisorblade wrote: > On Wednesday 07 September 2005 14:00, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > So far as I can see (I may have missed it), you really don't need to > > change from the write boolean > > > (perhaps -1 for exec in one arch??) > ? Not understood this part, ignoring it? > Maybe you mean "except one arch, x86_64, which supports exec protection?"
No, I meant the current code uses "0" for read fault, "1" for write fault, and (in a quick search) only found one architecture (I forget which, certainly not x86_64) which might have been interested to pass down a different value to handle_mm_fault to distinguish execution fault: for which I was suggesting to use "-1", rather than change everywhere. Though now I'm doubting there was any such case at all.
Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |