On Sun, 2015-02-01 at 17:09 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
I prefer having the test inside mm_fault_error(), even if that makes the
patch a bit bigger, it keeps the logic in a single place. Untested
I'm certainly ok with that, but I wanted to make the code that I
wasn't going to compile (much less test) for various architectures be
as simple and straightforward as possible.
Ah, I missed your reply ... my fault for using the wrong email address
to send my message in the first place :-)
So feel free to send a patch that fixes it up to do it
in a single
place after testing it.
Ok sure, I'll have a look in the next few days, bogged down with some
local emergency right now.
Of course, what I *really* want would be to make a
"generic_mm_fault()" helper that would do all the normal stuff:
- check permissions and ranges
- call 'handle_mm_fault()'
- do the proper error, retry and minor/major fault handling
and then most architectures could just call that.
That would be great ...
Anybody willing to see if they could encapsulate that
part of the x86
code, and make it more widely useful? I say "x86 code", because that's
the most tested one, and I think it gets the odd retry and error cases
right (and minor/major fault counting etc), unlike some.
I can try to give it a spin some time this week I think, I can probably
do x86, powerpc and arm. Let's see if I manage to not forget :)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org