On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:39:47 +0100 Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 02:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Look: I can't fix *everyone's* stuff. This was a consequence of ongoing > > > > unbounded churn in the x86 tree. If we can find a way of preventing those > > > > guys (and everyone else) from trashing everyone else's stuff then we'd have > > > > much smoother sailing. > > > > > > Understood. That is where I jump in and regenerate my patches on the > > > latest available level. That the patches did hold up for some months in > > > -mm now without really breaking anything is an indication that we can > > > push them upstream now, isn't ? That would make the patch problem go > > > away and I could queue my s390 specific page table rework. Our KVM > > > people keep asking about it. > > > > yes, against 2.6.24-mm1 would be good, thanks. I really don't know what > > went wrong in i386 but I ended up getting all grumpy at the macro mess > > we've made in all the pagetable handling. Please do take a look at > > improving that. > > I'm trying to replace the __pte_free_tlb macros my patch touches for the > different architectures. Not much luck yet, there is a reason why > __pte_free_tlb is a macro in the first place: welcome to #include hell. > I'm starting to get grumpy as well.. > > Just an example for x86-64: > * asm-x86/tlb.h includes asm-generic/tlb.h > * asm-generic/tlb.h includes asm-x86/pgalloc.h > * asm-x86/pgalloc.h includes asm-x86/pgalloc_64.h > * asm-x86/pgalloc_64.h includes asm-x86/tlb.h > * since asm-x86/tlb.h started this #include chain it expands to nothing > * asm-x86/pgalloc_64.h calls tlb_remove_page which is defined in > asm-x86/tlb.h but the compiler hasn't seen the definition yet > * you loose.. > > I got x86-64 compiled by removing the #include <asm/pgalloc.h> from > asm-generic/tlb.h. But who knows what will break if the include is > missing .. I'll cross compile some of the other architectures next. > urgh, well, thanks for trying. If there's significant risk factor (or hassle) in fixing the macros then I'd suggest we not do it for now - it's a separate project. At least x86 is getting better in that regard. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
