On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 04:51:14PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:11:28PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > > @@ -1178,6 +1178,7 @@ static struct xol_area *__create_xol_area(unsigned
> > > long vaddr)
> > > goto free_area;
> > >
> > > area->xol_mapping.name = "[uprobes]";
> > > + area->xol_mapping.fault = NULL;
> > > area->xol_mapping.pages = area->pages;
> >
> > Would not something like:
> >
> > area->xol_mapping = (struct vm_special_mapping){
> > .name = "[uprobes]",
> > .pages = area->pages,
> > };
> >
> > Be a more robust approach? That way, if someone adds more fields, they
> > at least get initialized (to 0).
>
> OK, agreed...
>
> Do you want me to send v2? Or incremental patch because this one is already in
> -tip tree.
>
> Or do nothing unless you feel strongly about it. area->xol_mapping should go
> away,
> but we need a simple preparation in mm/mmap.c.
Yeah, no real strong feelings. Esp. if you're working on getting it
killed.
