On Thu, 10 May 2007, David Miller wrote: > > > 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. I agree. Hugh - 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
