From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e34.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A120CDDE22 for ; Thu, 1 May 2008 10:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m410FmUa001943 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:15:48 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m410IUt5220960 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:18:30 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m416IUQG005902 for ; Thu, 1 May 2008 00:18:30 -0600 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:11:53 -0500 From: Josh Boyer To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] convert transfer_to_handler into a macro Message-ID: <20080430191153.49fce28e@zod.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1209599602.18023.273.camel@pasglop> References: <18455.37613.709102.30668@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <73CD5806-5CE4-40A7-957B-8F164E26FAFB@kernel.crashing.org> <1209537128.18023.225.camel@pasglop> <1209592794.18023.248.camel@pasglop> <2A2997EA-F3AF-4C90-8952-42CA48AA07BC@kernel.crashing.org> <20080430184502.4f0c66e2@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1209599602.18023.273.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul, Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 01 May 2008 09:53:22 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 18:45 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > thanks. Will take a look. I just plan on overloading MMUCR with > > MAS0. > > > > Erg. Why? Please don't do that. This is common code and MAS0 > > doesn't > > make much sense on 4xx. It'll be confusing to anyone that isn't aware > > of this change. > > Nah, he meant using the slot for MAS0 in the exception frame structure > as to not have to define two different structures I suppose... Ah, ok. Sorry, still playing catch up on email. I thought we were talking about a #define. josh