[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090816020030.73E8037813C@ns.ariel-networks.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:00:30 +0900 (JST)
From: ohyama_sec@...el-networks.com
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 : omit duplicate processing at pte_pgprot()
I'm sorry, I resend the same context message accidentally.
So, please ignore this message.
thank you.
ohyama_sec@...el-networks.com wrote:
> I suggest following PATCH that omit duplicate processing of mask.
>
> pte_pgprot() macro [arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h] call pte_flags() [arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_types.h] that return value is masked by PTE_FLAGS_MASK in pte_flags() function, and this macro also masks the returned value by PTE_FLAGS_MASK.
>
> I guess that we don't have to do the mask processing at pte_pgprot() macro because it has already been masked at pte_flags().
> So, how about the following PATCH ?
>
> <Hiroyasu OHYAMA>
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
> index 3cc06e3..a0b454c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
> @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ static inline pgprot_t pgprot_modify(pgprot_t oldprot, pgprot_t newprot)
> return __pgprot(preservebits | addbits);
> }
>
> -#define pte_pgprot(x) __pgprot(pte_flags(x) & PTE_FLAGS_MASK)
> +#define pte_pgprot(x) __pgprot(pte_flags(x))
>
> #define canon_pgprot(p) __pgprot(massage_pgprot(p))
> --
> 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/
>
>
--
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