* Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > But given that most architectures will be just fine reusing > > the already existing generic PROT_NONE machinery, the far > > better approach is to do what we've been doing in generic > > kernel code for the last 10 years: offer a default generic > > version, and then to offer per arch hooks on a strict > > as-needed basis, if they want or need to do something weird > > ... > > If they are *not* fine with it, it's a large retrofit because > the PROT_NONE machinery has been hard-coded throughout. [...] That was a valid criticism for earlier versions of the NUMA patches - but should much less be the case in the latest iterations of the patches: - it has generic pte_numa() / pmd_numa() instead of using prot_none() directly - the key utility functions are named using the _numa pattern, not *_prot_none*() anymore. Let us know if you can still see such instances - it's probably simple oversight. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>