From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764220AbZEAR6x (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 13:58:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756028AbZEAR6o (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 13:58:44 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:46053 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754804AbZEAR6n (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 13:58:43 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 34/35] powerpc use generic ptemap.h From: Dave Hansen To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20090501174617.GB8104@infradead.org> References: <20090501144201.D31EF417@kernel> <20090501144254.52127677@kernel> <20090501174617.GB8104@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 10:58:40 -0700 Message-Id: <1241200721.29485.202.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 13:46 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 07:42:54AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > powerpc is a bid of an oddball here. It seems to have CONFIG_HIGHPTE > > behavior at all times when compiled as 32-bit. There's even an > > #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHPTE in arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_32.c, but there's no > > trace of HIGHPTE in Kconfig anywhere. > > > > This gives ppc32 an explicit HIGHPTE in Kconfig so that we can use > > the #ifdef in asm-generic/ptemap.h and let ppc use the generic code > > with x86 and frv. > > But if you enabled HIGHPTE you need to remove that ifdef in pgtable_32.c > because it didn't get triggered before. OK, that makes sense. > > #define _POWERPC_ASM_PTEMAP_H > > > > #ifndef __powerpc64__ > > +/* > > + * This lets us use the x86 implementation > > + * in the generic ptemap.h > > + */ > > +#define kmap_atomic_pte(page, type) kmap_atomic(page, type) > > +#endif > > That comment doesn't make any sense to me, x86 should have nothing to do > with it. Also the comment would comfortably fit into a single line > instead of two. You're right, that is more of a changelog thing. I'll fix it up. -- Dave