On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:27:26PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 19:27 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > The version that just got into mainline still has the __put_task_struct
> > export despite not needing it anymore. Care to fix this up?
>
> No, it got patched in then
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:27:26PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 19:27 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
The version that just got into mainline still has the __put_task_struct
export despite not needing it anymore. Care to fix this up?
No, it got patched in then
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 19:27 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The version that just got into mainline still has the __put_task_struct
> export despite not needing it anymore. Care to fix this up?
No, it got patched in then immediately patched out again. Andrew
mis-mixed my patches, but there
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 02:52:23PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> This is solely for the wakeup: you don't wake an mm 8)
>
> The mm reference is held as well under the big lguest_mutex (mm gets
> destroyed before files get closed, so we definitely do need to hold a
> reference).
>
> I just
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 02:52:23PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
This is solely for the wakeup: you don't wake an mm 8)
The mm reference is held as well under the big lguest_mutex (mm gets
destroyed before files get closed, so we definitely do need to hold a
reference).
I just completed
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 19:27 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
The version that just got into mainline still has the __put_task_struct
export despite not needing it anymore. Care to fix this up?
No, it got patched in then immediately patched out again. Andrew
mis-mixed my patches, but there have
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 14:10 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Remove export of __put_task_struct, and usage in lguest
> >
> > lguest takes a reference count of tasks for two reasons. The first is
> > bogus: the /dev/lguest close callback will be called before the task
> > is
Rusty Russell wrote:
Remove export of __put_task_struct, and usage in lguest
lguest takes a reference count of tasks for two reasons. The first is
bogus: the /dev/lguest close callback will be called before the task
is destroyed anyway, so no need to take a reference on open.
What about
Rusty Russell wrote:
Remove export of __put_task_struct, and usage in lguest
lguest takes a reference count of tasks for two reasons. The first is
bogus: the /dev/lguest close callback will be called before the task
is destroyed anyway, so no need to take a reference on open.
What about
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 14:10 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
Remove export of __put_task_struct, and usage in lguest
lguest takes a reference count of tasks for two reasons. The first is
bogus: the /dev/lguest close callback will be called before the task
is destroyed
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 21:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> We seem to be taking the reference against the wrong thing here. It should
> be against the mm, not against a task_struct?
This is solely for the wakeup: you don't wake an mm 8)
The mm reference is held as well under the big lguest_mutex
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:48:41 +1000 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 19:28 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:21:51 +1000
> >
> > > To do inter-guest (ie. inter-process) I/O you really have to make
From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:15:18 +1000
> Sure, the process has /dev/lguest open, so I can do something in the
> close routine. Instead of keeping a reference to the tsk, I can keep a
> reference to the struct lguest (currently it doesn't have or need a
>
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 19:51 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:48:41 +1000
>
> > We drop the lock after I/O, and then do this wakeup. Meanwhile the
> > other task might have exited.
>
> I already understand what you're doing.
>
> Is
From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:48:41 +1000
> We drop the lock after I/O, and then do this wakeup. Meanwhile the
> other task might have exited.
I already understand what you're doing.
Is it possible to use exit notifiers to handle this case?
That's what I'm
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 19:28 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:21:51 +1000
>
> > To do inter-guest (ie. inter-process) I/O you really have to make sure
> > the other side doesn't go away.
>
> You should just let it exit and when it
From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:21:51 +1000
> To do inter-guest (ie. inter-process) I/O you really have to make sure
> the other side doesn't go away.
You should just let it exit and when it does you receive some kind of
exit notification that resets your
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 14:23 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > lguest-export-symbols-for-lguest-as-a-module.patch
>
> __put_task_struct is one of those no way in hell should this be exported
> things because we don't want modules messing with task lifetimes.
>
> Fortunately I can't find
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:23:24 +0200
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > lguest-export-symbols-for-lguest-as-a-module.patch
>
> __put_task_struct is one of those no way in hell should this be exported
> things because we don't want modules messing with task lifetimes.
>
> Fortunately
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:23:24 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
...
> > lguest-the-guest-code.patch
> > lguest-the-host-code.patch
> > lguest-the-host-code-lguest-vs-clockevents-fix-resume-logic.patch
> > lguest-the-asm-offsets.patch
> > lguest-the-makefile-and-kconfig.patch
> >
> lguest-export-symbols-for-lguest-as-a-module.patch
__put_task_struct is one of those no way in hell should this be exported
things because we don't want modules messing with task lifetimes.
Fortunately I can't find anything actually using this in lguest, so
it looks the issue has been solved
lguest-export-symbols-for-lguest-as-a-module.patch
__put_task_struct is one of those no way in hell should this be exported
things because we don't want modules messing with task lifetimes.
Fortunately I can't find anything actually using this in lguest, so
it looks the issue has been solved in
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:23:24 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
...
lguest-the-guest-code.patch
lguest-the-host-code.patch
lguest-the-host-code-lguest-vs-clockevents-fix-resume-logic.patch
lguest-the-asm-offsets.patch
lguest-the-makefile-and-kconfig.patch
lguest-the-console-driver.patch
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:23:24 +0200
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lguest-export-symbols-for-lguest-as-a-module.patch
__put_task_struct is one of those no way in hell should this be exported
things because we don't want modules messing with task lifetimes.
Fortunately I can't
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 14:23 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
lguest-export-symbols-for-lguest-as-a-module.patch
__put_task_struct is one of those no way in hell should this be exported
things because we don't want modules messing with task lifetimes.
Fortunately I can't find anything
From: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:21:51 +1000
To do inter-guest (ie. inter-process) I/O you really have to make sure
the other side doesn't go away.
You should just let it exit and when it does you receive some kind of
exit notification that resets your virtual
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 19:28 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:21:51 +1000
To do inter-guest (ie. inter-process) I/O you really have to make sure
the other side doesn't go away.
You should just let it exit and when it does you
From: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:48:41 +1000
We drop the lock after I/O, and then do this wakeup. Meanwhile the
other task might have exited.
I already understand what you're doing.
Is it possible to use exit notifiers to handle this case?
That's what I'm
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 19:51 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:48:41 +1000
We drop the lock after I/O, and then do this wakeup. Meanwhile the
other task might have exited.
I already understand what you're doing.
Is it possible
From: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:15:18 +1000
Sure, the process has /dev/lguest open, so I can do something in the
close routine. Instead of keeping a reference to the tsk, I can keep a
reference to the struct lguest (currently it doesn't have or need a
refcnt).
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:48:41 +1000 Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 19:28 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:21:51 +1000
To do inter-guest (ie. inter-process) I/O you really have to make sure
the
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 21:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
We seem to be taking the reference against the wrong thing here. It should
be against the mm, not against a task_struct?
This is solely for the wakeup: you don't wake an mm 8)
The mm reference is held as well under the big lguest_mutex
32 matches
Mail list logo
