public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: <tglx@linutronix.de>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"Andi Kleen" <ak@suse.de>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix ref-counting bug in change_page_attr()
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:38:46 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47624F26.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47622CC5.3060903@goop.org>

>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> 14.12.07 08:12 >>>
>Jan Beulich wrote:
>> When either calling change_page_attr() with the default attributes
>> pages in the direct mapping have and a page's attributes already were
>> set to the default or when changing the attributes from one non-default
>> value to another, the reference counting broke, leading to either
>> premature restoration of a large page or missing the opportunity to do
>> so.
>>
>> At the same time, make __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT on 64-bits the value it
>> architecturally ought to have.
>>   
>
>Could you put this in a separate patch?  I have a bunch of page*.h and
>pgtable*.h refactoring patches which will conflict with this.

I doesn't seem logical to do so: The patch needs to introduce the definitions
for 32-bits (in order to define pte_pgprot()), and not doing the adjustment
for 64-bits here means (a) becoming inconsistent and (b) the pte_pgprot()
there would be incorrect. So such a split out patch would need to be a pre-
requisite to the one here, which wouldn't help avoiding the collisions with
your unification patches.

Jan


  reply	other threads:[~2007-12-14  8:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-12-13  9:34 [PATCH] x86: fix ref-counting bug in change_page_attr() Jan Beulich
2007-12-14  7:12 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-12-14  8:38   ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2007-12-17 13:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-17 13:41   ` Jan Beulich
2007-12-17 14:34     ` Ingo Molnar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=47624F26.76E4.0078.0@novell.com \
    --to=jbeulich@novell.com \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox