[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150423151118.40c41fb1810f2aaa877163ae@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:11:18 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Zhang Zhen <zhenzhang.zhang@...wei.com>
Cc: Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux@....linux.org.uk>, <catalin.marinas@....com>,
<tony.luck@...el.com>, <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
<ralf@...ux-mips.org>, <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
<schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
<James.Yang@...escale.com>, <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: reduce arch dependent code about
huge_pmd_unshare
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:35:04 +0800 Zhang Zhen <zhenzhang.zhang@...wei.com> wrote:
> Currently we have many duplicates in definitions of huge_pmd_unshare.
> In all architectures this function just returns 0 when
> CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE is N.
>
> This patch put the default implementation in mm/hugetlb.c and lets
> these architecture use the common code.
Memory fails me. Why do some architectures (arm, arm64, x86_64) want
huge_pmd_[un]share() while other architectures (ia64, tile, mips,
powerpc, metag, sh, s390) do not?
--
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