On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 18:02 +0530, Aneesh Kumar wrote: > On 2/22/07, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 12:34 +0530, Aneesh Kumar wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Is __copy_from_user_inatomic and __copy_to_user_inatomic really atomic > > > > if you call the _inatomic version you, the caller, are supposed to have > > pinned the memory first, to make sure it's not swapped out. If it is > > anyway, you'll get a error return code, no attempt is made to fault the > > page back in. > > > > > > I am trying to locate the code for that. As far as i can see both the > version __copy_to_user and __copy_to_user_inatomic doesn't have much > difference. Also i looked at do_page_fault and i can see it finding > vma. So where is it coded that it will not fault the page back in for > _inatomic version ? it can't happen because the caller pinned the page in the first place.. -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
