On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 06:21:36PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > This is insane. Having such a massively invasive change to the whole mm, > barely tested on most architecture, and last I heard still generally > controversial being merged like that without even some integration > testing via -next makes no sense. This is 99% a noop for all archs but x86.. Really if you worry about the testing you should worry about x86 only! Only x86 is affected by the brainer part of the code, and only if TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=y (which is set to N by default). Not x86 archs can't possibly have a regression because of this. The reason there's this compile trouble is that I cleaned up some bad code in include/asm-generic/pgtable.h while adding the pmd methods, and I tried to keep everything as a static inline as requested by Mel for better gcc compile time validation than what the preprocessor can do. Otherwise if it was a macro I may not have had to return anything and I could just BUG() in this pmd method that requires the __pmd macro to be implemented by all archs (I think it's better off if __pmd is available considering __pte seems already available). The below can't introduce regressions, if it builds it'll work, so the testing on -next for the other archs isn't really necessary at all. I don't think you can worry about a one liner change to make ia64 build, when the brainer part of the code is a noop for the other archs (including x86 when the config option is off). -- 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
