* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-03-15 19:03:44]: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-03-15 14:22:09]: > > > > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > > +/* > > > > + * Called with tsk->mm->mmap_sem held (either for read or write and > > > > + * with a reference to tsk->mm > > > > > > Hmm, why is holding it for read sufficient? > > > > We are not adding a new vma to the mm; but just replacing a page with > > another after holding the locks for the pages. Existing routines > > doing close to similar things like the > > access_process_vm/get_user_pages seem to be taking the read_lock. Do > > you see a resaon why readlock wouldnt suffice? > > No, I just was confused by the comment. Probably should have asked why > you want to call it write locked. We no more call it write locked. So we can drop the reference to write lock. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>