From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751757AbWDCP4e (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:56:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751758AbWDCP4e (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:56:34 -0400 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:41419 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751757AbWDCP4d (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:56:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] unify PFN_* macros From: Dave Hansen To: Ralf Baechle Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060403124916.GA14044@linux-mips.org> References: <20060323162459.6D45D1CE@localhost.localdomain> <20060403124916.GA14044@linux-mips.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:56:08 -0700 Message-Id: <1144079768.9731.132.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 13:49 +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 08:24:59AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > Just about every architecture defines some macros to do operations on > > pfns. They're all virtually identical. This patch consolidates all > > of them. > > > > One minor glitch is that at least i386 uses them in a very skeletal > > header file. To keep away from #include dependency hell, I stuck > > the new definitions in a new, isolated header. > > > > Of all of the implementations, sh64 is the only one that varied by a > > bit. It used some masks to ensure that any sign-extension got > > ripped away before the arithmetic is done. This has been posted to > > that sh64 maintainers and the development list. > > > > Compiles on x86, x86_64, ia64 and ppc64. > > Ehhh... Looks at this patch I wonder if you actually read the MIPS bits > before submitting it: > > o replaces PFN_ALIGN with PAGE_ALIGN Yeah, that is blatantly wrong. I have no idea what I was thinking there. > o replaces the IP27 definition of PFN_ALIGN with a different one. That was part of the idea :) Was there something special about that implementation? > How about posting such stuff to linux-arch? No sane person follows l-k. I was under the impression that linux-arch wasn't the kind of list which is supposed to posted to by "normal" people. I was scolded once for cc'ing it. If instructed so, I'd be happy to post there in the future. -- Dave