* Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote:That was in the initial version, before my patch, yes. I dealt with page crossing at first, then added a more restrictive test to "play safe" (I should have removed the page-crossing code at that point), but later on noticed that there was a single case where it's valid to do non-atomic updates, and it's when the execution flow is bypassed by a breakpoint (as the immediate values are doing), so the last patch you have removes the restrictive test and lets the page-crossing code in place. hrm, I am not convinced it's safe to call vmap() very early at boot time. In the immediate values implementation, I do call text_poke very very early at boot to populate the initial values. Or maybe are you proposing something different from what I currently understand ? Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 --
| James Bruce | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Peter Zijlstra | [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8 |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Peter Zijlstra | [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 18/37] dccp: Support for Mandatory options |
| Rick Jones | Re: Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Josip Rodin | bnx2_poll panicking kernel |
