From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:06:02 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:10711 "EHLO dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20022806AbXCZOF7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:05:59 +0100 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l2QE5iKT014503; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:05:44 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l2QE5gD7014502; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:05:42 +0100 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:05:42 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Ravi Pratap Cc: David Daney , Atsushi Nemoto , miklos@szeredi.hu, linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: flush_anon_page for MIPS Message-ID: <20070326140542.GA14354@linux-mips.org> References: <46046AC9.5070306@avtrex.com> <36E4692623C5974BA6661C0B18EE8EDF6CD3FA@MAILSERV.hcrest.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <36E4692623C5974BA6661C0B18EE8EDF6CD3FA@MAILSERV.hcrest.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 14694 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:33:10AM -0400, Ravi Pratap wrote: > > >> Thanks so much! Will this go into 2.6.15 by any chance? > > > > > > I don't recall that there every has been such a kernel release ;-) > > > > > > But seriously, 2.6.15 is as dead as Tutankhamun. > > > > Some chip vendors only support that version, so I am assuming > > that that was the reason for the question. > > That's correct, actually :-) > > > It is a classic case of what happens when people do ports > > that are not merged. They say it is good enough as is and > > then never move forward or fix bugs. > > True, and I don't know why these vendors do it. I wish too that they > didn't. Talk to them. Be prepared to reiterate. > > The good news I guess is that we have the source, so we could > > forward port it if we were really motivated. > > Yes, but isn't it a lot of work considering the lack of a > flush_anon_page in 2.6.15? David wrote about forward porting the patches in your vendor kernel to a more modern kernel. That would require some work but the flush_anon_page() thing would be the least of your worries. Otherwise, you'd need to backport the about following changesets into your kernel to get flush_anon_page: 03beb07664d768db97bf454ae5c9581cd4737bb4 df7c814ea6385fea8ccf54c80ec78326f78b743e f036773e8760a79ad9fdeea6665f86d3493d40d1 4c40981a5c0fe1ee5c755a55a4a8e5e3527f0bca Ralf