[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e09e71048eb74d0c8eee68bf1f865d36@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:10:42 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@...radead.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>
CC: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"aarcange@...hat.com" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"jroedel@...e.de" <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH 3/9] sh/mm: Make pmd_t similar to pte_t
From: Peter Zijlstra
> Sent: 30 November 2020 11:27
>
> Just like 64bit pte_t, have a low/high split in pmd_t.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> arch/sh/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/arch/sh/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h
> +++ b/arch/sh/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h
> @@ -28,9 +28,15 @@
> #define pmd_ERROR(e) \
> printk("%s:%d: bad pmd %016llx.\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, pmd_val(e))
>
> -typedef struct { unsigned long long pmd; } pmd_t;
> +typedef struct {
> + struct {
> + unsigned long pmd_low;
> + unsigned long pmd_high;
> + };
> + unsigned long long pmd;
> +} pmd_t;
Would it be better to use u32 and u64?
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists