Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: another attempt at x86 pagetable unification

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

> > found a couple of bugs.
> >
> > firstly, 64-bit wasnt so lucky, you broke 
> > iounmap()/change_page_attr()
> > :-)
> 
> Crap.  Worked for me.  I'll look into it.

well, there's an easy solution for unification patches: the resulting 
object files must have _exactly the same_ content as without the 
unification patches. (Modulo strings as WARN_ON()s referring to 
include-file names.)

If they differ then the unification did something wrong. With your 
patchset and the config i sent, the difference is visible in the image 
size already:

   text     data   bss     dec              hex    filename
   7763766  967330 5812328 14543424         ddea40 vmlinux.after
   7763811  967330 5812328 14543469         ddea6d vmlinux.before

also, reducing the size and scope of changes helps as well - because 
that way it can be bisected down to specific changes. Mistakes 
inevitably happen, especially if you do not enforce a rigid 
byte-for-byte correctness along the way. You did 5 rather large patches, 
and it's not testable because your unification steps were too coarse.

In other words: you were asking for trouble and you got it :-)

	Ingo