From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:13:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/10] alternate 4-level page tables patches In-Reply-To: <20041221093628.GA6231@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Linus Torvalds , Nick Piggin , Linux Memory Management , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Sorry, but I think that's a very bad approach. If the i386 users > don't get warnings I will need to spend a lot of time just patching > behind them. While x86-64 is getting more and more popular most > hacking still happens on i386. > > Please use a type safe approach that causes warnings > and errors on i386 too. Otherwise it'll cause me much additional > work longer term. Having the small advantage of a perhaps > slightly easier migration for long term maintenance hazzle > is a bad tradeoff IMHO. I agree, that's what I was asking too: if i386 is not initially converted to typesafe pud_t, then I'd soon want to add a patch for that. The type unsafe pud_t == pgd_t is great for doing a simple conversion of all architectures in one small patch, but no way does it exclude implementing typesafe pud_t on selected (perhaps eventually all) architectures, both those that need it for 4levels and those where it's advisable for build testing. Hugh -- 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