From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763572AbYETNrs (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 09:47:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754472AbYETNrk (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 09:47:40 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:39570 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754159AbYETNrk (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 09:47:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4832D65C.2030108@goop.org> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 14:47:08 +0100 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hugh Dickins CC: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Theodore Tso , Gabriel C , Keith Packard , "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , Eric Anholt , "Siddha, Suresh B" , airlied@linux.ie, "Barnes, Jesse" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] x86: use PTE_MASK consistently References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hugh Dickins wrote: > I'll leave it to you and Linus whether your way of defining PTE_MASK is > satisfactory as is, or needs to be improved to his way. I've not tried > his suggestion of doing the _PAGE_BIT definitions: certainly it's > seemed odd to me that they were defined with L, but I've little > appetite to mess around with them now myself. > Yes, well, that was me too, with the intention of making ~_PAGE_FOO generate an appropriately sized mask. I guess it would be better to use pteval_t these days. J