From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759984AbXEJLay (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2007 07:30:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753201AbXEJLas (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2007 07:30:48 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:59397 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751349AbXEJLar (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2007 07:30:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:30:45 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Jan Beulich Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, discuss@x86-64.org Subject: Re: [discuss] pte_{ex,rd}protect Message-ID: <20070510113045.GD14898@one.firstfloor.org> References: <46430780.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46430780.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:52:32AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > Various architectures define these, but they aren't being used anywhere - > candidates for removal? The more that (at least) on i386 and x86-64 > pte_exprotect() is not symmetrical to pte_exec() and pte_mkexec()... They should be removed everywhere imho -Andi