[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1205344286.9828.91.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:51:26 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Gerald Schaefer <geraldsc@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 09/10] Hugetlb common code update for System z.
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 18:32 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> +#ifndef ARCH_HAS_HUGE_PTE_TYPE
> +#define huge_pte_none(pte) pte_none(pte)
> +#define huge_pte_wrprotect(pte) pte_wrprotect(pte)
> +#define huge_ptep_set_wrprotect(mm, addr, ptep) \
> + ptep_set_wrprotect(mm, addr, ptep)
> +#define huge_ptep_set_access_flags(vma, addr, ptep, pte, dirty) \
> + ptep_set_access_flags(vma, addr, ptep, pte, dirty)
> +#define huge_ptep_get(ptep) (*ptep)
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifndef ARCH_HAS_PREPARE_HUGEPAGE
Can you guys please do these defines in Kconfig instead of headers? I
find them much easier to track down when I have one place to look,
rather than a mess of 14 other #includes in a arch-specific header. :)
I'm also a little concerned that you just #ifdef'd in about 44 new ptep
functions in here. Have you carefully considered doing this in a way
that would fit in better with the other architectures?
> Huge ptes have a special type on s390 and cannot be handled with the
> standard pte functions in certain cases.
Can you elaborate a bit more on that?
-- Dave
--
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