> That is not possible. If you look at where mm_update_next_owner() is calledif so, following patch is needed instead. --- fs/exec.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/fs/exec.c =================================================================== --- a/fs/exec.c 2008-05-04 22:57:09.000000000 +0900 +++ b/fs/exec.c 2008-05-06 15:40:35.000000000 +0900 @@ -735,7 +735,7 @@ static int exec_mmap(struct mm_struct *m tsk->active_mm = mm; activate_mm(active_mm, mm); task_unlock(tsk); - mm_update_next_owner(mm); + mm_update_next_owner(old_mm); arch_pick_mmap_layout(mm); if (old_mm) { up_read(&old_mm->mmap_sem); --
| David Miller | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Heiko Carstens | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Jan Engelhardt | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
