On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 03:05:45PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi
>
> The following patch consists of minor tweaks in order to get
> the mm to work.
I was wondering. The fault.c change boils down to:
===== arch/ppc/mm/fault.c 1.26 vs edited =====
--- 1.26/arch/ppc/mm/fault.c 2004-05-25 04:50:34 -07:00
+++ edited/arch/ppc/mm/fault.c 2004-05-27 09:48:17 -07:00
@@ -350,11 +350,14 @@
pgd_t *dir;
pmd_t *pmd;
pte_t *pte;
+ struct mm_struct *mm;
if (address < TASK_SIZE)
- return NULL;
+ mm = current->mm;
+ else
+ mm = &init_mm;
- dir = pgd_offset(&init_mm, address);
+ dir = pgd_offset(mm, address & PAGE_MASK);
if (dir) {
pmd = pmd_offset(dir, address & PAGE_MASK);
if (pmd && pmd_present(*pmd)) {
Can you explain this a bit more? Looking back at the history in
BitKeeper, this change came from Paul, in the changeset with the
comments of:
PPC update for the recent changes to the pgd/pmd/pte functions.
This implements ptes-in-highmem for PPC, removes the quicklist
and zero-page stuff. PTEs in highmem on SMP turned out to need
some significant changes to avoid deadlocks on the hash_table_lock
(now renamed to mmu_hash_lock). The PMDs now contain the physical
address of the PTE page rather than the virtual address.
Anything that takes the mmu_hash_lock now operates with the DMMU
off to avoid MMU hash-table misses.
And for this file in particular:
Do pte_unmap after get_pteptr; use pte_offset_kernel instead of
pte_offset in a couple of places.
Which you exactly reverted. Were the changes from Paul incorrect here?
Or is perhaps there something more needed on the 8xx side of things?
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
