On 2024/4/11 1:28, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
On 10/04/2024 10:07, Kefeng Wang wrote:
On 2024/4/10 15:32, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
Hi Kefeng,
On 03/04/2024 10:38, Kefeng Wang wrote:
The access_error() of vma already checked under per-VMA lock, if it
is a bad access, directly handle error, no
On 10/04/2024 10:07, Kefeng Wang wrote:
On 2024/4/10 15:32, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
Hi Kefeng,
On 03/04/2024 10:38, Kefeng Wang wrote:
The access_error() of vma already checked under per-VMA lock, if it
is a bad access, directly handle error, no need to retry with mmap_lock
again. Since the
On 2024/4/10 15:32, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
Hi Kefeng,
On 03/04/2024 10:38, Kefeng Wang wrote:
The access_error() of vma already checked under per-VMA lock, if it
is a bad access, directly handle error, no need to retry with mmap_lock
again. Since the page faut is handled under per-VMA lock,
Hi Kefeng,
On 03/04/2024 10:38, Kefeng Wang wrote:
The access_error() of vma already checked under per-VMA lock, if it
is a bad access, directly handle error, no need to retry with mmap_lock
again. Since the page faut is handled under per-VMA lock, count it as
a vma lock event with
The access_error() of vma already checked under per-VMA lock, if it
is a bad access, directly handle error, no need to retry with mmap_lock
again. Since the page faut is handled under per-VMA lock, count it as
a vma lock event with VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS.
Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan
Signed-off-by:
