On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 1:48 PM Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > And then if somebody actually needs to pass in "modified fault state"
> > (ie that whole "I'm doing fault-around, so I'll use multiple
> > addresses") they'd never modify the address in the fault info, they'd
> > just pass the address as an
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:25:37AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:24 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if it would be acceptable to pass down to faultaround a copy
> > of vmf, so it mess with it without risking to corrupt the original one?
>
> I'd almost
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:03:29PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:34:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 9:15 AM Will Deacon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The big difference in this version is that I have
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:34:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 9:15 AM Will Deacon wrote:
> > >
> > > The big difference in this version is that I have reworked it based on
> > > Kirill's patch which he posted as a follow-up to
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:24 AM Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> I wonder if it would be acceptable to pass down to faultaround a copy
> of vmf, so it mess with it without risking to corrupt the original one?
I'd almost prefer to split vmf into two parts: the 'this is the fault
info' part and the
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:34:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I still dislike how we basically randomly modify the information in
> that 'vmf' thing.
I wounder if it would be acceptable to pass down to faultaround a copy
of vmf, so it mess with it without risking to corrupt the original one?
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:42:39AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:34 AM Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, I think that's a side effect of "now the code really makes a lot
> > more sense". Your subsequent patches 2-3 certainly are much simpler
> > now
>
> On that
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:34:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 9:15 AM Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> > The big difference in this version is that I have reworked it based on
> > Kirill's patch which he posted as a follow-up to the original. However,
> > I can't tell where
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:34 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Yeah, I think that's a side effect of "now the code really makes a lot
> more sense". Your subsequent patches 2-3 certainly are much simpler
> now
On that note - they could be simpler still if this was just done
entirely unconditionally..
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 9:15 AM Will Deacon wrote:
>
> The big difference in this version is that I have reworked it based on
> Kirill's patch which he posted as a follow-up to the original. However,
> I can't tell where we've landed on that -- Linus seemed to like it, but
> Hugh was less
10 matches
Mail list logo
