From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:33:53 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [Patch 2/3] Export get_one_pte_map. In-Reply-To: <20051017114730.GC30898@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com> Message-ID: References: <20051014192111.GB14418@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com> <20051014192225.GD14418@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com> <20051014213038.GA7450@kroah.com> <20051017113131.GA30898@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com> <1129549312.32658.32.camel@localhost> <20051017114730.GC30898@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Robin Holt Cc: Dave Hansen , Greg KH , ia64 list , linux-mm , Linux Kernel Mailing List , hch@infradead.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, William Lee Irwin III , Nick Piggin , Carsten Otte , Jack Steiner List-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Robin Holt wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:41:52PM +0200, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 06:31 -0500, Robin Holt wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 02:30:38PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 02:22:25PM -0500, Robin Holt wrote: > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_one_pte_map); > > I got a little push from our internal incident tracking system for > this being a module. _GPL it will be. Sorry, Robin, I've not been following your patches. But if you look at 2.6.14-rc4-mm1, you'll find that there isn't even a get_one_pte_map there. Though there's no certainty yet that my pt locking changes, or Nick's PageReserved changes, will actually go forward, there's a lot of work queued up in -mm that is likely to affect your code. And I don't think exporting internal functions from mremap.c, _GPL or otherwise, is the way to go. Moving useful functions to a more central location might be. But I'm very dubious about your doing this kind of pte stuff deep down in an architecture-specific driver. You're not the only one interested in this kind of functionality: we were thinking of providing it via an alternative to the ->nopage method, which deals in pfns rather than struct pages (I think that was wli's suggestion originally; Carsten has an interest in it on s390, and I bet there are others). There may be excellent reasons why that wouldn't be good enough for you, and your retcode method may be a better idea: I don't know yet. Please rebase your work to 2.6.14-rc4-mm1 (but I won't get to look at the result for a few days: perhaps others will). The big question has to be: what are you expecting to happen for PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE? 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: email@kvack.org