From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout1.freenet.de ([195.4.92.91]:36681 "EHLO mout1.freenet.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751326AbYAOJSl (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:18:41 -0500 Message-ID: <478C7A63.9060108@de.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:18:27 +0100 From: Carsten Otte Reply-To: carsteno@de.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 2/2] mm: introduce optional pte_special pte bit References: <20080113030810.GB22285@wotan.suse.de> <20080113031013.GD22285@wotan.suse.de> <20080113043922.GA22345@wotan.suse.de> <20080113050605.GA1340@wotan.suse.de> <6934efce0801141304q2987801dr7534fbc657d91061@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6934efce0801141304q2987801dr7534fbc657d91061@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jared Hulbert Cc: Linus Torvalds , Nick Piggin , Hugh Dickins , mschwid2@linux.vnet.ibm.com, heicars2@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Jared Hulbert wrote: > Seems > like the result is a reasonable compromise to me, I'm surprised Nicks > patch is as clean as it is. Many of the other proposed solutions are > very awkward for one or the other. I second that. It looks way cleaner then all other attempts to solve the problem.