On Thu May 12 14:22:16 EDT 2011, fors...@terzarima.net wrote: > is at worst inefficient. the kproc doesn't, however, share memory with > the current proc, and i don't think it needs to do anything at all. > (even if memory were shared, a new process starts with an empty mmu state.) > the comment is copied from another site, where it does matter, > but only for up (and flushmmu sets up->newtlb), and indeed there isn't a > p->newtlb mention there. > i don't think either statement is needed, but neither will they actually > cause harm.
makes sense. although i'm paranoid. i just delete the comment and both lines. i'd rather not do random things to a random process, even if i think i can convince myself that it is at worse inefficient. :-) - erik
