From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:00:12 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [patch 1/6] mm: Allow architectures to define additional protection bits In-Reply-To: <1215497929.8970.207.camel@pasglop> Message-ID: References: <20080618223254.966080905@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080618223328.856102092@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080701015301.3dc8749b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1214920499.18690.10.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> <1215409956.8970.82.camel@pasglop> <1215469468.8970.143.camel@pasglop> <1215497929.8970.207.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Dave Kleikamp , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-ID: On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 08:24 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > There is a little inconsistency, that arch_calc_vm_prot_bits > > > and arch_vm_get_page_prot just handle the exceptional flag (SAO), > > > whereas arch_validate_prot handles all of them; but I don't feel > > > so strongly about that to suggest resubmission. > > > > > > And regarding VM_SAO added to include/linux/mm.h in 3/6: although > > > it's odd to be weaving back and forth between arch-specific and > > > common, it's already the case that mman definitions and pgtable > > > definitions are arch-specific but mm.h common: I'm much happier > > > to have VM_SAO defined once there as Dave has it, than get into > > > arch-specific vm_flags. > > > > > > Is someone going to be asking for PROT_WC shortly? > > > > I'll definitely come with PROT_ENDIAN soon :-) (ie, some powerpc > > processors can have a per-page endian flag that when set causes all > > load/store instructions on this are to be byte-flipped, support for > > this > > feature has been requested for some time, and now I have the > > infrastructure to do it). > > BTW. Do we have your ack ? To PROT_SAO? Okay, Acked-by: Hugh Dickins > > Andrew, what tree should this go via ? I have further powerpc patches > depending on this one... so on one hand I'd be happy to take it, but > on the other hand, it's more likely to clash with other things... > > Maybe I should check how it applies on top of linux-next. > > Ben. -- 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