On 11/01/2017 11:27 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So I'd like to see not just the comments about this, but I'd like to > see the code itself actually making that very clear. Have *code* that > verifies that nobody ever tries to use this on a user address (because > that would *completely* screw up all coherency), but also I don't see > why the code possibly looks up the old physical address in ther page > table. Is there _any_ possible reason why you'd want to look up a page > from an old page table? As far as I can tell, we should always know > the physical page we are mapping a priori - we've never re-mapping > random virtual addresses or a highmem page or anything like that. > We're mapping the 1:1 kernel mapping only. The vmalloc()'d stacks definitely need the page table walk. That's yet another thing that will get simpler once we stop needing to map the process stacks. I think there was also a need to do this for the fixmap addresses for the GDT. But, I'm totally with you on making this stuff less generic. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
