On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 04:35:06PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:

And it does miss arm, the only arch which actually needs changing
right now, if we simply restore the original values which Nick shifted
- although arm references the VM_FAULT_ codes in some places, it also
uses "> 0".  arm26 looks at first as if it needs changing too, but
a closer look shows it's remapping the faults and is okay - agreed?

Your patch doesn't look right.  Firstly, I'd rather stay away from
switch() if at all possible - past experience has shown that it
generates inherently poor code on ARM.  Whether that's still true
or not I've no idea, but I don't particularly want to find out at
the moment.

Restore VM_FAULT_SIGBUS, VM_FAULT_MINOR and VM_FAULT_MAJOR to their
original values, so that arches which have them hardcoded will still
work before they're cleaned up.  And correct arm to use the VM_FAULT_
codes throughout, not assuming MINOR and MAJOR are the only ones > 0.

And the above rules this out.

As I say, I fixed ARM this morning, so changing these constants will
break it again.  Let's just wait for things to stabilise instead of
trying to race with architecture maintainers...

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>