Re: regression: 2f569af (CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables.)

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

On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 19:49 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > > For a complete fix we might want to change the type of pte?
> > 
> > You mean instead of a "struct page *" use a pgtable_t ? Yes, that would
> > be cleaner even if it is the same type.
> 
> Would someone mind investigating how the code ended up in this mess in
> the first place, so we can avoid this kind of thing in the future?

One thing I have learned is that if I ever have to do a change over all
architectures again I will split the patch into the common part and the
arch parts and send it to the respective maintainers directly. Adding
linux-arch seems NOT to be enough to get the attention of the arch
maintainers (having the patch in -mm for 3 month is not doing the trick
either).

> It looks like the pte_lock_deinit() appeared in
> 4c21e2f2441dc5fbb957b030333f5a3f2d02dea7.
> 
> The dec_zone_page_state() used to be dec_page_state(nr_page_table_pages);
> which then became a dec_zone_page_state() in
> df849a1529c106f7460e51479ca78fe07b07dc8c.
> 
> Both changes of those changes on their own look correct.
> 
> Ah, is it that someone skipped over ARM when they changed the page table
> freeing code?  Yes - 2f569afd9ced9ebec9a6eb3dbf6f83429be0a7b4 has:

Yes, sorry. I need one of these brown paper bags..

-- 
blue skies,
  Martin.

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