From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:38:00 +0100 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/10] alternate 4-level page tables patches Message-ID: <20041222103800.GC15894@wotan.suse.de> References: <20041221093628.GA6231@wotan.suse.de> <20041221201927.GD15643@wotan.suse.de> <41C8B678.40007@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41C8B678.40007@yahoo.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , Hugh Dickins , Linux Memory Management , Andrew Morton List-ID: > I understand you'd be frustrated if 4level wasn't in 2.6.11, but as I > said, I don't think the choice of pud over pml4 would necessarily cause > such a delay. It would require a longer testing cycle in -mm* again, at least several weeks and probably some support from the arch maintainers again. That may push it too late. > > As far as I understand, you don't have any problem with the 'pud' > implementation in principle? I don't have anything directly against the name (although I'm still not sure what it actually stands for) or the location (top level or mid level), but I'm worried about the delay of redoing the testing cycle completely. I don't see any technical advantages of your approach over mine, eventually all the work has to be done anyways, so in the end it boils down what names are prefered. However I suspect you could use your time better, Nick, than redoing things that have been already done ;-) -Andi -- 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: aart@kvack.org