On 09/23, Robert Ho wrote:
>
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ m_next_vma(struct proc_maps_private *priv, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> static void m_cache_vma(struct seq_file *m, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> {
> if (m->count < m->size) /* vma is copied successfully */
> - m->version = m_next_vma(m->private, vma) ? vma->vm_start : -1UL;
> + m->version = m_next_vma(m->private, vma) ? vma->vm_end : -1UL;
> }
OK.
> static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> @@ -176,14 +176,14 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
>
> if (last_addr) {
> vma = find_vma(mm, last_addr);
> - if (vma && (vma = m_next_vma(priv, vma)))
> + if (vma)
> return vma;
> }
I think we can simplify this patch. And imo make it better. How about
if (last_addr) {
vma = find_vma(mm, last_addr - 1);
if (vma && vma->vm_start <= last_addr)
vma = m_next_vma(priv, vma);
if (vma)
return vma;
}
?
This way we do not need other changes in show_map_vma(), and the same vma
won't be reported twice (as 2 different vma's) if it grows in between.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
