From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422900AbXCBGpg (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:45:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422960AbXCBGpg (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:45:36 -0500 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:36247 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422900AbXCBGpf (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:45:35 -0500 Message-ID: <45E7C80E.1020107@goop.org> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:45:34 -0800 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070212) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zachary Amsden CC: Chris Wright , Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Virtualization Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] Vmi fix highpte References: <200703020254.l222smBB009668@zach-dev.vmware.com> <45E79529.9000305@goop.org> <45E79C72.4000806@goop.org> <45E7C4DD.1040403@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <45E7C4DD.1040403@vmware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Zachary Amsden wrote: > Yeah, actually that does work, since you pass the km_type, we can use > that. But I would rather not respin this for 2.6.21; getting this > 100% right can be tricky, and we've already done a good deal of > testing on this patch the way it is. It seems fairly low risk to me; its basically the same structure with the same calls happening in the same order, but just slightly rearranged in the source. Of course, if I'd seen this patch earlier I could have given you earlier feedback... > Do you have any objection to me creating a patch for -mm tree that > implements kmap_atomic_pte the way you have described above and > attaching it to the Xen patch series, but leaving the current patch as > is for now? Not particularly, but it seems odd to put something in knowing its going to be immediately replaced. What's the urgency? > Thanks, (and thanks for the suggestion - I was a little worried about > how it would play with Xen when HIGHPTE support came around, but it > looks like it will work for both of us with just one paravirt-op). Yeah, the kpte_clear_flush change helped as well. I have a patch to make that into a pvop as well, since its useful to do the clear+flush in a single call. J