On 02/27/2015 11:52 AM, David Daney wrote: > > 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 > Okay, I see what you are after. I think it is worth doing, but I would really like to get XPA into 4.0 along with this patch as it is. I will commit to doing a follow up patch for the above. Is that acceptable?
