On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 01:24:29PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote: > On 06/25/2012 12:19 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:10:57PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote: > >> On 06/25/2012 11:59 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:14:37AM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote: > >>>> This patch adds generic pages mapping methods that > >>>> work on all archs in the absence of support for > >>>> local_tlb_flush_kernel_range() advertised by the > >>>> arch through __HAVE_LOCAL_TLB_FLUSH_KERNEL_RANGE > >>> > >>> Is this #define something that other arches define now? Or is this > >>> something new that you are adding here? > >> > >> Something new I'm adding. > > > > Ah, ok. > > > >> The precedent for this approach is the __HAVE_ARCH_* defines > >> that let the arch independent stuff know if a generic > >> function needs to be defined or if there is an arch specific > >> function. > >> > >> You can "grep -R __HAVE_ARCH_* arch/x86/" to see the ones > >> that already exist. > >> > >> I guess I should have called it > >> __HAVE_ARCH_LOCAL_TLB_FLUSH_KERNEL_RANGE though, not > >> __HAVE_LOCAL_TLB_FLUSH_KERNEL_RANGE. > > > > You need to get the mm developers to agree with this before I can take > > it. > > > > But, why even depend on this? Can't you either live without it > > The whole point of the patch is _not_ to depend on it. It > just performs worse without it. We could just rip out all > the the page table assisted page mapping, but, for the > arches that have support for it, we'd be degrading > performance in exchange for portability. Why choose when we > can have both? Ok, I'll let you fight it out with the mm people before applying these 2 patches, I've applied the first one only for now. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
