Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: uaccess s/might_sleep/might_fault/

2013-05-07 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 04:28:40PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:52:41AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > The only reason uaccess routines might sleep > > > is if they fault. Make this explicit for > > > __copy_from_user_noca

Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: uaccess s/might_sleep/might_fault/

2013-05-02 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:52:41AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > The only reason uaccess routines might sleep > > is if they fault. Make this explicit for > > __copy_from_user_nocache, and consistent with > > copy_from_user and friends. > > > > Signed-off-by: M

Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: uaccess s/might_sleep/might_fault/

2013-05-02 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > The only reason uaccess routines might sleep > is if they fault. Make this explicit for > __copy_from_user_nocache, and consistent with > copy_from_user and friends. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > --- > > I've updated all other arches as well - still > b

[PATCH RFC] x86: uaccess s/might_sleep/might_fault/

2013-05-01 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
The only reason uaccess routines might sleep is if they fault. Make this explicit for __copy_from_user_nocache, and consistent with copy_from_user and friends. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin --- I've updated all other arches as well - still build-testing. Any objections to the x86 patch? ar