From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964959AbWD0GXN (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:23:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964960AbWD0GXN (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:23:13 -0400 Received: from smtp107.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.217]:33660 "HELO smtp107.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964959AbWD0GXM (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:23:12 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=XrCqdidoRAi2Q6h2+Z89gYVzmzYJNJ6SH1mK/WZ5CUrFxqHRIMHs3obluEoDI9qTLH4aVFw1uwh8MinRNZqEDT+7wXsrJgoOHxx7u3ffkj9Cxmfg2dFvj4k1T3aH7OjBda9kRGnXL9Z7RtPxd5tL9B1sD1O788H4bwAeWTnhvlE= ; Message-ID: <44506023.4060609@yahoo.com.au> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:09:39 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Magnus Damm CC: Dave McCracken , Dave Hansen , Hugh Dickins , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Shared Page Tables [1/2] References: <1144685591.570.36.camel@wildcat.int.mccr.org> <1144695296.31255.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Magnus Damm wrote: > On 4/11/06, Dave McCracken wrote: >>No one actually uses any of the pud_page and pgd_page macros (other than >>one reference in the same include file). After some discussion on the list >>the last time I posted the patches, we agreed that changing pud_page and >>pgd_page to be consistent with pmd_page is the best solution. We also >>agreed that I should go ahead and propagate that change across all >>architectures even though not all of them currently support shared page >>tables. This patch is the result of that work. > > > What is the merge status of this patch? > > I've written some generic page table creation code for kexec, but the > fact that pud_page() returns struct page * on i386 but unsigned long > on other architectures makes it hard to write clean generic code. > > Any merge objections, or was this patch simply overlooked? Don't think there would be any objections. If someone sends along a broken out patch, I'm sure it could get into 2.6.18. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <44506023.4060609@yahoo.com.au> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:09:39 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Shared Page Tables [1/2] References: <1144685591.570.36.camel@wildcat.int.mccr.org> <1144695296.31255.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Magnus Damm Cc: Dave McCracken , Dave Hansen , Hugh Dickins , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List-ID: Magnus Damm wrote: > On 4/11/06, Dave McCracken wrote: >>No one actually uses any of the pud_page and pgd_page macros (other than >>one reference in the same include file). After some discussion on the list >>the last time I posted the patches, we agreed that changing pud_page and >>pgd_page to be consistent with pmd_page is the best solution. We also >>agreed that I should go ahead and propagate that change across all >>architectures even though not all of them currently support shared page >>tables. This patch is the result of that work. > > > What is the merge status of this patch? > > I've written some generic page table creation code for kexec, but the > fact that pud_page() returns struct page * on i386 but unsigned long > on other architectures makes it hard to write clean generic code. > > Any merge objections, or was this patch simply overlooked? Don't think there would be any objections. If someone sends along a broken out patch, I'm sure it could get into 2.6.18. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org