From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750963AbVI1Nhz (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:37:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750965AbVI1Nhz (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:37:55 -0400 Received: from gold.veritas.com ([143.127.12.110]:4914 "EHLO gold.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750962AbVI1Nhy (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:37:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:37:22 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@goblin.wat.veritas.com To: Blaisorblade cc: LKML , Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3 In-Reply-To: <200509261758.23705.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Message-ID: References: <200508262023.29170.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <200509042110.01968.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <200509261758.23705.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2005 13:37:53.0938 (UTC) FILETIME=[D403AF20:01C5C431] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sorry, it's really hard to read your interspersed comments. Perhaps I need to switch on some colour option when reading your mails, but I've never found the need for it before. Please, use a blank line above and below your comments to help us locate them and read them, thanks. On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Blaisorblade wrote: > On Wednesday 07 September 2005 14:00, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > So far as I can see (I may have missed it), you really don't need to > > change from the write boolean > > > (perhaps -1 for exec in one arch??) > ? Not understood this part, ignoring it? > Maybe you mean "except one arch, x86_64, which supports exec protection?" No, I meant the current code uses "0" for read fault, "1" for write fault, and (in a quick search) only found one architecture (I forget which, certainly not x86_64) which might have been interested to pass down a different value to handle_mm_fault to distinguish execution fault: for which I was suggesting to use "-1", rather than change everywhere. Though now I'm doubting there was any such case at all. Hugh