Re: handle_mm_fault() calling convention cleanup..

[Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>]

On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 08:56:16PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 09:31 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I have no problems with that. I'd always intended to have flags
> > go further up the call chain like Linus did (since we'd discussed
> > perhaps making faults interruptible and requiring an extra flag
> > to distinguish get_user_pages callers that were not interruptible).
> > 
> > So yes adding more flags to improve code or make things simpler
> > is fine by me :)
> > 
> That's before you see my evil plan of bringing the flags all the way
> down to set_pte_at() :-)

So long as it can be nooped out of x86 I don't see it being
a problem.

One problem x86 has with the mm/memory.c code is that it
runs out of registers (especially in fork/exit iirc). So
I wouldn't like to add unnecessary arguments to functions
if they cannot be optimised away.


--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>