From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: vm changes from linux-2.6.14 to linux-2.6.15 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <20070509231937.ea254c26.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070430145414.88fda272.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070430.150407.07642146.davem@davemloft.net> <1177977619.24962.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070430.173806.112621225.davem@davemloft.net> <1177985136.24962.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178055110.13263.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070509231937.ea254c26.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:29:43 +1000 Message-Id: <1178778583.14928.210.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Mark Fortescue , David Miller , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, wli@holomorphy.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, andrea@suse.de, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > We never seemed to reach completion here? Well, I'm waiting for other people comments too... as I said earlier, I'm not too fan of burrying the update_mmu_cache() inside ptep_set_access_flags(), but perhaps we could remove the whole logic of reading the old PTE & comparing it, and instead have ptep_set_access_flags() do that locally and return to the caller wether a change occured that requires update_mmu_cache() to be called. That way, archs who don't actually need update_mmu_cache() under some circumstances will be able to return 0 there. What do you guys thing ? Ben. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org