On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:37:46 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/01/2011 09:11 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 12:51:03PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote: > >> From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Andrew, > > > > I was wondering if you would be Ok with this patch for 3.1. > > > > It is a revert (I can prepare a proper revert if you would like > > that instead of this patch). David's patch looks better than a straight reversion. Problem is, I can't find David's original email anywhere. Someone's been playing games with To: headers? > > The users of this particular function (alloc_vm_area) are just > > Xen. There are no others. > > I'd prefer to put explicit vmalloc_sync_all()s in the callsites where > necessary, What would that patch look like? Bear in mind that we'll need something suitable for 3.1 and for a 3.0 backport. > and ultimately try to work out ways of avoiding it altogether > (like have some hypercall wrapper which touches the arg memory to make > sure its mapped?). -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>