From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932073AbWD0SYF (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:24:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964920AbWD0SYF (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:24:05 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com ([24.93.47.42]:41203 "EHLO ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964947AbWD0SYE (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:24:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:23:58 -0500 From: Dave McCracken To: Nick Piggin , Magnus Damm cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Shared Page Tables [1/2] Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <44506023.4060609@yahoo.com.au> References: <1144685591.570.36.camel@wildcat.int.mccr.org> <1144695296.31255.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44506023.4060609@yahoo.com.au> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.0b4 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --On Thursday, April 27, 2006 16:09:39 +1000 Nick Piggin wrote: > Magnus Damm wrote: >> On 4/11/06, Dave McCracken wrote: > >>> No one actually uses any of the pud_page and pgd_page macros (other than >>> one reference in the same include file). After some discussion on the >>> list the last time I posted the patches, we agreed that changing >>> pud_page and pgd_page to be consistent with pmd_page is the best >>> solution. We also agreed that I should go ahead and propagate that >>> change across all architectures even though not all of them currently >>> support shared page tables. This patch is the result of that work. >> >> >> What is the merge status of this patch? >> >> I've written some generic page table creation code for kexec, but the >> fact that pud_page() returns struct page * on i386 but unsigned long >> on other architectures makes it hard to write clean generic code. >> >> Any merge objections, or was this patch simply overlooked? > > Don't think there would be any objections. If someone sends > along a broken out patch, I'm sure it could get into 2.6.18. This patch is broken out. It only contains the changes necessary to standardize the pxd_page/pxd_page_kernel macros across the architectures. As far as I know the only reason it isn't being considered for merge is that no one other than shared page tables has been using the macros. Dave McCracken