From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] powerpc: 64K page support for kexec From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Paul Mackerras In-Reply-To: <17972.22463.103425.51542@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <1177626236.24866.99.camel@luke-laptop> <1177601310.24866.94.camel@luke-laptop> <772e4d4c76807769449cf1bf874d2ce1@bga.com> <1177690940.24866.124.camel@luke-laptop> <1177695045.24866.135.camel@luke-laptop> <17972.22463.103425.51542@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:31:01 +1000 Message-Id: <1177839061.14873.352.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Milton Miller , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Olof Johansson , cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 18:30 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Luke Browning writes: > > > How about the following as an alternative. > > > > BUG_ON((hpte_v & 0x4000000000000000UL) && (crashing_cpus == -1)); > > BUG_ON((size == MMU_PAGE_16G) && (crashing_cpus == -1)); > > BUG_ON((size == MMU_PAGE_64K_AP) && (crashing_cpus == -1)); > > How much effort would it be to add the code to cope with those > conditions and give the correct answers? I'd much prefer that to > these BUG_ONs. hrm... 1T segments shouldn't be too hard... 16G pages goes with it pretty much, and AP ... well... do they work on any implementation anyway ? Ben.