On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 08:56:16PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 09:31 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > I have no problems with that. I'd always intended to have flags > > go further up the call chain like Linus did (since we'd discussed > > perhaps making faults interruptible and requiring an extra flag > > to distinguish get_user_pages callers that were not interruptible). > > > > So yes adding more flags to improve code or make things simpler > > is fine by me :) > > > That's before you see my evil plan of bringing the flags all the way > down to set_pte_at() :-) So long as it can be nooped out of x86 I don't see it being a problem. One problem x86 has with the mm/memory.c code is that it runs out of registers (especially in fork/exit iirc). So I wouldn't like to add unnecessary arguments to functions if they cannot be optimised away. -- 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
