[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <571E1006.8080102@citrix.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:39:34 +0100
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
CC: <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>,
<toshi.kani@...com>, <linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>,
<peterz@...radead.org>, <brgerst@...il.com>,
Luis Rodriguez <Mcgrof@...e.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <luto@...capital.net>,
<vkuznets@...hat.com>, <dvlasenk@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
<david.vrabel@...rix.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [tip:x86/asm] x86/mm/xen: Suppress hugetlbfs in PV
guests
On 25/04/16 08:52, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 22.04.16 at 20:03, <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>>> +#define hugepages_supported() cpu_has_pse
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please don't use the cpu_has_* macros anymore, they are going away soon.
>>>
>>> In this case it should be static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PSE).
>>
>> I can certainly do that, but this
>> - will (mildly) harm backportability
>> - imo should have been requested much earlier (when the patch was
>> still under discussion)
>
> It's requested now as cpu_has_* is going away. So instead of making silly
> arguments you should have sent a delta patch fixing this.
Ingo fixed this up in the x86/asm branch[1] so I assumed this patch
didn't need updating.
David
[1]
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?h=x86/asm&id=b2eafe890d4a09bfa63ab31ff018d7d6bb8cfefc
Powered by blists - more mailing lists