Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Take a writer lock for mmap_sem.

To:	Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Take a writer lock for mmap_sem.
From:	Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:18:27 +0100
Cc:	xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-ppc-devel <xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Mon, 09 Jul 2007 09:16:28 -0700
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<1183995930.26508.16.camel@basalt>
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AcfCRMfcBkk82i44EdyVxQAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] [PATCH] Take a writer lock for mmap_sem.
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214



On 9/7/07 16:45, "Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> My mistake, I meant to send this separately.
> 
> In 2.6.17, we did our own locking inside direct_remap_pfn_range(). In
> the current Linux tree though, the locking is done in privcmd_ioctl().
> 
> However, since direct_remap_pfn_range() is modifying the mm_struct,
> shouldn't that be a a write lock rather than a read lock?

Ah yes, agreed. All other callers seem to get this implicitly because they
are ->mmap handlers.

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-ppc-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Take a writer lock for mmap_sem.