On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:46:52PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 08:22:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:40 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > David, is your patchset going to be pushed in this merge window as expected? > > > > Apparently aiming for 3.16 right now. > > > > > > That being said, these bits are precious, and if this ends up being a > > > case where "only Xen needs another bit" once again then Xen should > > > expect to get kicked to the curb at a moment's notice. > > > > Quite frankly, I don't think it's a Xen-only issue. The code was hard > > to figure out even without the Xen issues. For example, nobody ever > > explained to me why it > > > > (a) could be the same as PROTNONE on x86 > > (b) could not be the same as PROTNONE in general > > This series exists in response to your comment > > I fundamentally think that it was a horrible horrible disaster to > make _PAGE_NUMA alias onto _PAGE_PROTNONE. > > As long as _PAGE_NUMA aliases to _PAGE_PROTNONE on x86 then the core has to > play games to take that into account and the code will be "hard to figure > out even without the Xen issues". Is what you want for _PAGE_NUMA to disappear from arch/x86 and instead use _PAGE_PROTNONE with comments explaining why and leave the core as it is? -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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>