On Sun, 2015-02-01 at 17:09 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 > > patch: > > 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 new > "generic_mm_fault()" helper that would do all the normal stuff: > > - find_vma() > - 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 :) Cheers, Ben. > Linus > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
