[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19f34abd0806030853p747c01bft7b773b21e1361bcb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 17:53:22 +0200
From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To: npiggin@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, andi@...stfloor.org, apw@...dowen.org,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, mingo@...e.hu, pbadari@...ibm.com,
shaggy@...tin.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, zach.brown@...cle.com
Subject: Re: + x86-implement-pte_special.patch added to -mm tree
On 6/3/08, akpm@...ux-foundation.org <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> The patch titled
> x86: implement pte_special
> has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
> x86-implement-pte_special.patch
...
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: x86: implement pte_special
> From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
>
> Implement the pte_special bit for x86. This is required to support
> lockless get_user_pages, because we need to know whether or not we can
> refcount a particular page given only its pte (and no vma).
Wait... what the heck is a "special" page? Isn't that a terrible name
for _anything_? Or is there a tradition to the name? It sounds like it
should be named "novma" or "autonomous" or something instead.
Something that carries at least a little more information than
"special". Where can I find the documentation for this bit?
Has this been discussed on LKML? Is the name a result of consensus or whim?
Help! :-)
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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