> In article <200110181751.SAA06344@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> you write:
> >Also, note one of the other bugs I fixed today; pmap_collect isn't told 
> >(and as far as I can see) has no way of establishing if the pmap is shared 
> >with another process (created by vfork); unmapping the vectors page (which 
> >would be necessary before we could release the L1 pt) if there is another 
> >process sharing the L1 pt is highly detrimental to the health of the 
> >system.
> 
> pmap_activate() should be able to notice a pmap_collect()ed pmap and undo
> the action as necessary, shouldn't it?
> 
Not necessarily, the pmap may even be the active pmap;  I've seen this 
happen (since a test I put into pmap_activate for a missing page 0 never 
triggered).

R.