* Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Why not use something what we have in numa/core already: > > > > f05ea0948708 mm/mpol: Create special PROT_NONE infrastructure > > > > Because it's hard-coded to PROT_NONE underneath which I've > complained about before. [...] To which I replied that this is the current generic implementation, the moment some different architecture comes around we can accomodate it - on a strictly as-needed basis. It is *better* and cleaner to not expose random arch hooks but let the core kernel modification be documented in the very patch that the architecture support patch makes use of it. 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>