lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: PTE access rules & abstraction
From
Date
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 00:55 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> Whyever not the latter? Jeremy seems to have gifted that to you,
> for precisely such a purpose.

Yeah. Not that I don't quite understand what the point of the
start/modify/commit thing the way it's currently used in mprotect since
we are doing the whole transaction for a single PTE change, ie how does
that help with hypervisors vs. a single ptep_modify_protection() for
example is beyond me :-)

When I think about transactions, I think about starting a transaction,
changing a -bunch- of PTEs, then commiting... Essentially I see the PTE
lock thing as being a transaction.

Cheers,
Ben.

> Hugh
>
> p.s. I surely agree with you over the name ptep_get_and_clear_full():
> horrid, even more confusing than the tlb->fullmm from which it derives
> its name. I expect I'd agree with you over a lot more too, but
> please, bugfixes first.

Sure.





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-25 03:09    [W:0.094 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site