Re: 2.4.18 no timestamp update on modified mmapped files

[Kevin Easton <s3159795@student.anu.edu.au>]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Russell King wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 07:12:30PM +1000, Kevin Easton wrote:
> > > Hmm.. so how do such pages get marked dirty on architectures that don't
> > > do it in hardware ("most RISC architectures" according to a comment in
> > > memory.c)? Is the entire mapping made dirty when the write permissions
> > > are added?
> > 
> > No.  You only give user space write access when the write access _and_
> > "Linux dirty bit" are set.  This means you fault when user space tries
> > to write to the page, which means you can set the dirty bit.  This is
> > what the following code is doing (if write_access is required and the
> > pte already has write permission, then set the dirty bit):
> > 
> >         if (write_access) {
> >                 if (!pte_write(entry))
> >                         return do_wp_page(mm, vma, address, pte, pmd, entry);
> > 
> >                 entry = pte_mkdirty(entry);
> > }
> 
> Thanks, Russell.  Sorry, Kevin: I wasn't even thinking about
> non-i86 cases, add that to the list of disclaimers I put in.
> 
> Hugh

So... the difference on i386 is just the definitions of the protection_map
entries that are used.. specifically that PAGE_SHARED in asm-i386/pgtable.h
includes _PAGE_RW? Changing this definition to be the same as the PAGE_COPY
definition would be one fix?

	- Kevin.