On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 15:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > include/asm-sh/hugetlb.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/asm-sparc64/hugetlb.h | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/asm-x86/hugetlb.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > these seem largely duplicated - shouldnt there be an > asm-generic/hugetlb.h instead, which asm/hugetlb.h could include to get > default behavior? It would probably reduce the linecount of your patch > as well. Well the hugetlbfs primitives are architecture specific, aren't they? Just like the other page table manipulation functions. I find the usual method to use asm-generic/<xxx> and a lot of defines and #ifdefs to pick up the correct definition from a generic header file rather hard to read. In the end each arch that wants to use hugetlbfs has to define each of the hugetlb primitives. Most of them are rather simple, e.g. the x86 set_huge_pte_at is just a set_pte_at. One line to define the primitive. Now we could have an #ifdef block around the default definition that maps set_huge_pte_at to set_pte_at in asm-generic and an ARCH_HAS_xx override for architecture that need to do something more complicated. Somehow that was where we started .. I think the best way to get rid of the ARCH_HAS_xxx fugliness is to let each architecture define their primitives, even if it looks like code duplication. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
