On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 6:34 PM Xu, Yanfei wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/20/20 12:57 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:58:34PM +0800, Xu, Yanfei wrote:
> >> ping Al Viro
> >>
> >> Could you please help to review this patch? Thanks a lot.
> >
> > That's -next, right? As for the patch
On 7/20/20 12:57 AM, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:58:34PM +0800, Xu, Yanfei wrote:
ping Al Viro
Could you please help to review this patch? Thanks a lot.
That's -next, right? As for the patch itself... Frankly,
Yes, it's -next.
Daniel's patch looks seriously wrong.
Get
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:58:34PM +0800, Xu, Yanfei wrote:
> ping Al Viro
>
> Could you please help to review this patch? Thanks a lot.
That's -next, right? As for the patch itself... Frankly,
Daniel's patch looks seriously wrong.
* why has O_CLOEXEC been quietly smuggled in? It's
a
ping Al Viro
Could you please help to review this patch? Thanks a lot.
Yanfei
On 7/15/20 12:12 AM, yanfei...@windriver.com wrote:
From: Yanfei Xu
when get_unused_fd_flags gets failure, userfaultfd_ctx_cachep will
be freed by userfaultfd_fops's release function which is the
Add maintainer Alexander Viro :)
On 7/15/20 12:12 AM, yanfei...@windriver.com wrote:
From: Yanfei Xu
when get_unused_fd_flags gets failure, userfaultfd_ctx_cachep will
be freed by userfaultfd_fops's release function which is the
userfaultfd_release. So we could return directly after fput().
From: Yanfei Xu
when get_unused_fd_flags gets failure, userfaultfd_ctx_cachep will
be freed by userfaultfd_fops's release function which is the
userfaultfd_release. So we could return directly after fput().
userfaultfd_release()->userfaultfd_ctx_put(ctx)
Fixes: d08ac70b1e0d (Wire UFFD up to
6 matches
Mail list logo
