On 22.01.2018 23:51, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov
<khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08.10.2017 12:16, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
This looks fine in general, but a few comments:
- can you split adding the new function from switching over the fork
codeok
- at least kasan and vmalloc_user/vmalloc_32_user use very similar
patterns, can you switch them over as well?
I don't see why VM_USERMAP cannot be set right at allocation.
I'll add vm_flags argument to __vmalloc_node() and
pass here VM_USERMAP from vmalloc_user/vmalloc_32_user
in separate patch.
KASAN is different: it allocates shadow area for area allocated for module.
Pointer to module area must be pushed from module_alloc().
This isn't worth optimization.
- the new __alloc_vm_area looks very different from alloc_vm_area,
maybe it needs a better name? vmalloc_range_area for example?
__vmalloc_area() is vacant - this most low-level, so I'll keep "__".
- when you split an existing function please keep the more low-level
function on top of the higher level one that calls it.ok
Did this ever get re-sent?
It seems not. Probably lost in race-condition with my vacation.
Will do.
--
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>
