From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: faults and signals From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <452AF546.4000901@yahoo.com.au> References: <20061009140354.13840.71273.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20061009140447.13840.20975.sendpatchset@linux.site> <1160427785.7752.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> <452AEC8B.2070008@yahoo.com.au> <1160442685.32237.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <452AF546.4000901@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:58:30 +1000 Message-Id: <1160445510.32237.50.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Nick Piggin , Hugh Dickins , Linux Memory Management , Andrew Morton , Jes Sorensen , Linux Kernel , Ingo Molnar List-ID: > Yep, the flags field should be able to do that for you. Since we have > the handle_mm_fault wrapper for machine faults, it isn't too hard to > change the arguments: we should probably turn `write_access` into a > flag so we don't have to push too many arguments onto the stack. > > This way we can distinguish get_user_pages faults. And your > architecture will have to switch over to using __handle_mm_fault, and > distinguish kernel faults. Something like that? Yes. Tho it's also fairly easy to just add an argument to the wrapper and fix all archs... but yeah, I will play around. Ben. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org