On Tue 18-10-16 14:56:09, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 02:54:25PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > @@ -1282,7 +1282,7 @@ long get_user_pages(unsigned long start, unsigned
> > > long nr_pages,
> > > int write, int force, struct page **pages,
> > >
On Wed 19-10-16 09:40:45, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:13:52AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 19-10-16 09:59:03, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Thu 13-10-16 01:20:18, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > This patch removes the write parameter from __access_remote_vm() and
> > >
On Thu 13-10-16 01:20:16, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> This patch removes the write and force parameters from get_user_pages() and
> replaces them with a gup_flags parameter to make the use of FOLL_FORCE
> explicit
> in callers as use of this flag can result in surprising behaviour (and hence
> bugs)
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:13:52AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 19-10-16 09:59:03, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 13-10-16 01:20:18, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > This patch removes the write parameter from __access_remote_vm() and
> > > replaces it
> > > with a gup_flags parameter as use of
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:52:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> yes this is the desirable and expected behavior.
>
> > wonder if this is desirable behaviour or whether this ought to be limited to
> > ptrace system calls. Regardless, by making the flag more visible it makes it
> > easier to see
On Wed 19-10-16 10:06:46, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:52:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > yes this is the desirable and expected behavior.
> >
> > > wonder if this is desirable behaviour or whether this ought to be limited
> > > to
> > > ptrace system calls. Regardless,
On Thu 13-10-16 01:20:18, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> This patch removes the write parameter from __access_remote_vm() and replaces
> it
> with a gup_flags parameter as use of this function previously _implied_
> FOLL_FORCE, whereas after this patch callers explicitly pass this flag.
>
> We make
On Wed 19-10-16 09:58:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to
> > me whether we need an explicit FOLL_REMOTE when we can in fact check
> > mm != current->mm and imply
On Thu 13-10-16 01:20:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> This patch removes the write and force parameters from get_vaddr_frames() and
> replaces them with a gup_flags parameter to make the use of FOLL_FORCE
> explicit
> in callers as use of this flag can result in surprising behaviour (and hence
>
On 10/19/2016 02:07 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 19-10-16 09:58:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to
>>> me whether we need an explicit FOLL_REMOTE when we can in
On Wed 19-10-16 09:49:43, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 02:07 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 19-10-16 09:58:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to
> >>> me
On 10/19/2016 10:01 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> The question I had earlier was whether this has to be an explicit FOLL
> flag used by g-u-p users or we can just use it internally when mm !=
> current->mm
The reason I chose not to do that was that deferred work gets run under
a basically random
12 matches
Mail list logo
