[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5215D99102000078000ED838@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:27:45 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Cyrill Gorcunov" <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...capital.net>,
"David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
<Xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
"Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"Pavel Emelyanov" <xemul@...allels.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: Regression: x86/mm: new _PTE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY bit conflicts
with existing use
>>> On 22.08.13 at 09:03, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> Ok, how about this?
>
> static inline pte_t pte_swp_mksoft_dirty(pte_t pte)
> {
> BUG_ON(pte_present(pte));
> return pte_set_flags(pte, _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY);
> }
Sure, fine with me. Perhaps VM_BUG_ON() or some other similar
construct limiting the scope when any extra code gets generated
would do too.
But as said, even better would perhaps be to have it act on a
swp_entry_t.
Jan
--
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