On 02/26/2015 07:38 PM, Steven J. Hill wrote:
On 02/26/2015 06:51 PM, David Daney wrote:
That's not really what I meant in my previous response on the subject.
When I said:
Why not just use RI for everything, instead of taking up two bits
to represent a single binary concept?
For the case where there is no RI hardware active, it is a purely
software bit and you can easily invert the meaning and just have a
_PAGE_NO_READ bit.
I envisioned something like:
64-bit, all revisions: CCC D V G RI XI [S H] M A W P
32-bit, all revisions: CCC D V G RI XI M A W P
Which is what I implemented.
I think there is still misunderstanding.
Your patches leave us with definitions for *both* _PAGE_READ *and*
_PAGE_NO_READ defined in the source code. My suggestion was to
eliminate all vestiges of _PAGE_READ and _PAGE_READ_SHIFT, and unify all
variants to use _PAGE_NO_READ
I now only use one bit that functions
either as _PAGE_READ or _PAGE_READ_ONLY depending on the RI/XI
functionality present. Did you bother to read the code and understand
it, or just look at the commit message?
I did read it, see above.
