From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 4] mm: add a ptep_modify_prot transaction abstraction Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:13:48 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , LKML , x86@kernel.org, xen-devel , Thomas Gleixner , Zachary Amsden , kvm-devel , Virtualization Mailing List , Rusty Russell , Peter Zijlstra List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > > ptep_modify_prot_start() returns the current pte value, and puts the > > pte entry into a state where either the hardware will not update the > > pte, or if it does, the updates will be preserved on commit. > > > > ptep_modify_prot_commit() writes back the updated pte, makes sure that > > any hardware updates made since ptep_modify_prot_start() are > > preserved. > > Ok, I'm fine with this now that it's renamed to be clearly about just > protection bits. > > So > > Acked-by: Linus Torvalds And seems very reasonable (and exceptionally well described) to me too. Acked-by: Hugh Dickins