> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxx] On Friday, February 11, 2011 1:24 PM > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 08:55:56PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > I'm not saying this patch is wrong at all, but I still don't > > > understand why this is different depending on the architecture of > > > the machine. Why is this necessary, it should be ok to do the same > > > type of allocation no matter what the processor is, right? > > > > You are right Greg; I don't think there is a need to specify different > > page protection bits based on the architecture - PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC > should be enough. > > I thought so, but for some reason Hank said there this was needed. > Hank, is it still true? I recall we did it for older versions of Linux but I do not recall why. Something from way before 2.6.18, the reason of which I seem to have Purged due to age :) > > > However, this is the code that is currently in the tree - refer to osd.c. > > Oh, I remember, it's not a critique of this patch, it just reminded me of this > question I always had for this code. > > > If it is ok with you, I could submit an additional patch to clean this up. > > If Hank says it is ok, and you all test it to verify nothing breaks, please send it > on. If you could accept the patch as is and I will work with Ky to see if nothing breaks If we change this part to what you are suggesting? If nothing breaks we will submit A followup patch to remove those lines. Hank. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
