On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:19 +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 05:41:18PM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > When VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES was added, it was defined with the same value
> > as
> > VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS. This doesn't seem like it will cause any big
> > functional problems ot
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 05:41:18PM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> When VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES was added, it was defined with the same value as
> VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS. This doesn't seem like it will cause any big
> functional problems other than some excess flushing for VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES
> allocations.
>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 05:41:18PM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> When VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES was added, it was defined with the same value as
> VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS. This doesn't seem like it will cause any big
> functional problems other than some excess flushing for VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES
> allocations.
>
Hi:
On 2021/1/21 9:41, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> When VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES was added, it was defined with the same value as
> VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS. This doesn't seem like it will cause any big
Good catch!
> functional problems other than some excess flushing for VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES
> allocations.
>
> Red
When VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES was added, it was defined with the same value as
VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS. This doesn't seem like it will cause any big
functional problems other than some excess flushing for VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES
allocations.
Redefine VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES to have its own value. Also, move the comment
an
5 matches
Mail list logo