Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables.

[Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>]

On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 21:53 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 16:37:00 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> 
> > Why dropping add-mm-argument-to-pte-pmd-pud-pgd_free.patch though ?
> 
> I dropped the whole series.

Sniff .. my patches .. ;-)

> > It's a sane patch and a helps going further, and a total pain to re-do
> > later on. Besides, I may have some use for it on powerpc at some point
> > too...
> 
> OK, I'll try to reestablish it.

Fine. I've got the patch-merge message, so the first of the series is
done. 

> Look: I can't fix *everyone's* stuff.  This was a consequence of ongoing
> unbounded churn in the x86 tree.  If we can find a way of preventing those
> guys (and everyone else) from trashing everyone else's stuff then we'd have
> much smoother sailing.

Understood. That is where I jump in and regenerate my patches on the
latest available level. That the patches did hold up for some months in
-mm now without really breaking anything is an indication that we can
push them upstream now, isn't ? That would make the patch problem go
away and I could queue my s390 specific page table rework. Our KVM
people keep asking about it.

-- 
blue skies,
  Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.