From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 13:10:46 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: Why *not* rmap, anyway? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Momchil Velikov , William Lee Irwin III , Christian Smith , Joseph A Knapka , "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 8 May 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Wednesday 08 May 2002 16:43, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Wed, 8 May 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > > To make this concrete, what would copy_page_range look like, using this > > > mechanism? > > > > Or maybe copy_page_range should be behind this mechanism and > > modify the data structures directly ? > > It already modifies the data structures directly. You're proposing that > copy_page_range should be per_arch? No. I'm not proposing that data structures should be different per arch. All I'm interested in is separating parts of the VM from each other. Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ -- 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/