Re: [RFC/PATCH] Shared Page Tables [1/2]

[Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com>]

--On Thursday, April 27, 2006 16:09:39 +1000 Nick Piggin
<nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Magnus Damm wrote:
>> On 4/11/06, Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>>> No one actually uses any of the pud_page and pgd_page macros (other than
>>> one reference in the same include file).  After some discussion on the
>>> list the last time I posted the patches, we agreed that changing
>>> pud_page and pgd_page to be consistent with pmd_page is the best
>>> solution.  We also agreed that I should go ahead and propagate that
>>> change across all architectures even though not all of them currently
>>> support shared page tables.  This patch is the result of that work.
>> 
>> 
>> What is the merge status of this patch?
>> 
>> I've written some generic page table creation code for kexec, but the
>> fact that pud_page() returns struct page * on i386 but unsigned long
>> on other architectures makes it hard to write clean generic code.
>> 
>> Any merge objections, or was this patch simply overlooked?
> 
> Don't think there would be any objections. If someone sends
> along a broken out patch, I'm sure it could get into 2.6.18.

This patch is broken out.  It only contains the changes necessary to
standardize the pxd_page/pxd_page_kernel macros across the architectures.

As far as I know the only reason it isn't being considered for merge is
that no one other than shared page tables has been using the macros.

Dave McCracken

--
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>