From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:29:43 +1000 > > > We never seemed to reach completion here? > > Well, I'm waiting for other people comments too... as I said earlier, > I'm not too fan of burrying the update_mmu_cache() inside > ptep_set_access_flags(), but perhaps we could remove the whole logic of > reading the old PTE & comparing it, and instead have > ptep_set_access_flags() do that locally and return to the caller wether > a change occured that requires update_mmu_cache() to be called. > > That way, archs who don't actually need update_mmu_cache() under some > circumstances will be able to return 0 there. > > What do you guys thing ? I think that's a good idea. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html