Re: [GIT PULL] core kernel fixes

[Thomas Gleixner]

Linus,

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So just doing a "make_sure_its_writable()" and using handle_fault() is the 
> right thing to do. Because it's what get_user_fast() would have done too, 
> except it would have gone through first the fast case, and failed, then 
> the slow case, and failed the lookup there, and then the slow case would 
> have done that handle_mm_fault() in the end anyway.
> 
> In fact, since you're not actually interested in the page, you _could_ 
> just do
> 
> 	get_user_pages(tsk, mm, uaddr, 4, 1, 0, NULL, NULL);
> 
> where a NULL "pages" pointer already tells get_user_pages() that you're 
> not interested.
> 
> That's at least cleaner than doing a "gup_fast()" (which isn't fast), and 
> then freeing the page that you weren't even interested in.

Yes, you are right. The retry fixup path is after the fault and we
should go through handle_mm_fault as long as we do not have a general
available nondestructive counterpart of get_user().

I confused myself by twisting my brain whether we can simplify or even
get rid of the whole retry business.

Sorry, I did not express myself very well - looking for more than an
hour into the futex code definitely hurts your brain. It's worse than
the drugs you suspected we're on. :)

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/