From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:28:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: implement remap_pfn_range with apply_to_page_range In-Reply-To: <491DBD9E.6030703@goop.org> Message-ID: References: <491C61B1.10005@goop.org> <200811141417.35724.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <491D0B2F.7050900@goop.org> <200811141835.17073.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <491DBD9E.6030703@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Nick Piggin , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , Johannes Weiner List-ID: On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > > No, adding a cycle here or an indirect function call there IMO is > > not acceptable in core mm/ code without a good reason. > > OK. I'm with Nick on this: admittedly remap_pfn_range() is a borderline case (since it has no latency breaks at present), but it is a core mm function, and I'd prefer we leave it as is unless good reason. So, no hurry, but I'd prefer mm-implement-remap_pfn_range-with-apply_to_page_range.patch mm-remap_pfn_range-restore-missing-flush.patch to be removed from mmotm - and don't I deserve that, just for actually reading the mm-commits boilerplate ;-? 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