From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756087AbZEARq1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 13:46:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752580AbZEARqS (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 13:46:18 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:48783 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752499AbZEARqR (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 13:46:17 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:46:18 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Dave Hansen Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 34/35] powerpc use generic ptemap.h Message-ID: <20090501174617.GB8104@infradead.org> References: <20090501144201.D31EF417@kernel> <20090501144254.52127677@kernel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090501144254.52127677@kernel> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 07:42:54AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > powerpc is a bid of an oddball here. It seems to have CONFIG_HIGHPTE > behavior at all times when compiled as 32-bit. There's even an > #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHPTE in arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_32.c, but there's no > trace of HIGHPTE in Kconfig anywhere. > > This gives ppc32 an explicit HIGHPTE in Kconfig so that we can use > the #ifdef in asm-generic/ptemap.h and let ppc use the generic code > with x86 and frv. But if you enabled HIGHPTE you need to remove that ifdef in pgtable_32.c because it didn't get triggered before. > #define _POWERPC_ASM_PTEMAP_H > > #ifndef __powerpc64__ > +/* > + * This lets us use the x86 implementation > + * in the generic ptemap.h > + */ > +#define kmap_atomic_pte(page, type) kmap_atomic(page, type) > +#endif That comment doesn't make any sense to me, x86 should have nothing to do with it. Also the comment would comfortably fit into a single line instead of two.