On 02/27/2015 11:04 AM, Steven J. Hill wrote:
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
4.0 seems to be long gone with respect to adding new features, although
Ralf would obviously make the final decision.
