On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:33:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> How the heck did we end up using 32 flags??
Good question.
> > @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ vivt_flush_cache_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start, unsigned
> > {
> > if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mm_cpumask(vma->vm_mm)))
> > __cpuc_flush_user_range(start & PAGE_MASK, PAGE_ALIGN(end),
> > - vma->vm_flags);
> > + (unsigned long)vma->vm_flags);
> > }
>
> I'm surprised this change (and similar) are needed?
>
> Is it risky? What happens if we add yet another vm_flags bit and
> __cpuc_flush_user_range() wants to use it? I guess when that happens,
> __cpuc_flush_user_range() needs to be changed to take a ull.
The truncation is fine provided VM_EXEC is within the least significant
word. If it isn't, then we'll blow up when the cache handling assembly
gets parsed by the assembler as the VM_EXEC value will overflow.
--
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>