On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 20:19 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > 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. Ok, I'll cook a patch today. Ben. - 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
