| title: | Re PATCH 1 1 mm unify pmd free and pm |
|
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
I can second that. See
rel="nofollow" userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/include-asm-generic-pgtable-nopmdh-macros-are-noxious-reason-435.patch userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/include-asm-generic-pgtable-nopmdh-macros-are-noxious-reason-435.patch
Ingo cruelly ignored it. Probably hes used to ignoring the comit
storm which I send in his direction - Ill need to resend it sometime.
Id consider that patch to be partial - we should demacroize the
surrounding similar functions too. But that will require a bit more
testing.
Its immediate neighbours should be easy enough (pmd_alloc_one,
__pmd_free_tlb), but any of the ones involving pmd_t risk #include hell
(though the earlier references to pud_t in inline functions suggest it
will work). And pmd_addr_end is just ugly.
J
ok, lets start with the easiest: pmd_free() and __pmd_free_tlb().
Following another attempt to unify the implementations using inline
functions. It seems to build fine on x86 (pae / non-pae) and on
x86_64. This is an RFC patch right now, not for inclusion (just asking
if it could be a reasonable approach or not). And in any case this
would need more testing.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx
---
arch/sparc/include/asm/pgalloc_64.h | 1 +
include/asm-alpha/pgalloc.h | 1 +
include/asm-arm/pgalloc.h | 1 -
include/asm-frv/pgalloc.h | 2 --
include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
include/asm-ia64/pgalloc.h | 1 +
include/asm-m32r/pgalloc.h | 2 --
include/asm-m68k/motorola_pgalloc.h | 3 ++-
include/asm-m68k/sun3_pgalloc.h | 7 -------
include/asm-mips/pgalloc.h | 12 +-----------
include/asm-parisc/pgalloc.h | 2 +-
include/asm-powerpc/pgalloc-32.h | 2 --
include/asm-powerpc/pgalloc-64.h | 1 +
include/asm-s390/pgalloc.h | 1 -
include/asm-sh/pgalloc.h | 8 --------
include/asm-um/pgalloc.h | 1 +
include/asm-x86/pgalloc.h | 2 ++
17 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
the x86 bits look good to me in principle but touches a ton of
architectures and deals with VM issues - the perfect candidate for -mm?
Ingo
Yes, sounds reasonable. Ill rebase to -mm and post a new patch.
Thanks,
-Andrea
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at rel="nofollow" vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|
