From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763457AbXGYXKi (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:10:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759398AbXGYXKa (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:10:30 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:58723 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759021AbXGYXK3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:10:29 -0400 Subject: Re: pte_offset_map for ppc assumes HIGHPTE From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Satya Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:10:15 +1000 Message-Id: <1185405015.5439.369.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 17:16 -0500, Satya wrote: > hello, > The implementation of pte_offset_map() for ppc assumes that PTEs are > kept in highmem (CONFIG_HIGHPTE). There is only one implmentation of > pte_offset_map() as follows (include/asm-ppc/pgtable.h): > > #define pte_offset_map(dir, addr) \ > ((pte_t *) kmap_atomic(pmd_page(*(dir)), KM_PTE0) + pte_index(addr)) > > Shouldn't this be made conditional according to CONFIG_HIGHPTE is > defined or not (as implemented in include/asm-i386/pgtable.h) ? > > the same goes for pte_offset_map_nested and the corresponding unmap functions. Do we have CONFIG_HIGHMEM without CONFIG_HIGHPTE ? If yes, then indeed, we should change that. Though I'm not sure I see the point of splitting those 2 options. Ben.