[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080206091525.GA26358@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:15:25 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: schwidefsky@...ibm.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables.
* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > urgh, well, thanks for trying. If there's significant risk factor
> > > (or hassle) in fixing the macros then I'd suggest we not do it for
> > > now - it's a separate project.
> >
> > I'm still at it. I does make sense to convert the damn macros to
> > inline functions. The question now is the order of things, the macro
> > cleanup first or the sub-page page tables first? I would prefer the
> > sub-page page tables first since that code has been hanging around
> > in -mm for a while and could go upstream after I regenerated the
> > patch and test compiled it again. We do need it for KVM and we want
> > to push our KVM patches for s390 soon.
>
> I'd suggest do the macro ceanup later. That's the sort of thing which
> we can/should trickle through arch maintainers.
note that there are ways to stage even API extensions like adding an
extra 'struct mm_struct *mm' to macros. It takes a temporary ugliness
like:
#define __EXTRA_MM_ARG_DEF , struct mm_struct *mm
#define __EXTRA_MM_ARG_VAL(arg) , (arg)
which converted architectures redefine.
and at the end eliminate these compatibility macros from the core, once
all arches have converted.
so we _could_ stage even something like this.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists