From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
Subject: Linux: PG_pinned vs. PG_foreign
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:38:33 +0000
Message-ID: <45AB59A9.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Is it intentional that these two both use PG_arch_1? It seems at least risky
to me... And if intended, it would certainly deserve a comment. (I was about
to utilize PG_pinned for indicating pinned highmem-allocated PTEs when I
realized this collision.)

Thanks, Jan