On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 07:36:43PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I looked at it a year or two ago myself, and came to the conclusion that I
> > don't want to blow up our page table size by a factor of three or more, so
> > I'm not personally interested any more. Maybe somebody else comes up with
> > a better way to do it, or with a really compelling reason to.
>
> There is only one reason I know for reverse page tables. That is ARM2/ARM3
> support - which is still not fully merged because of this issue
>
> The MMU on these systems is a CAM, and the mmu table is thus backwards to
> convention. (It also means you can notionally map two physical addresses to
> one virtual but thats undefined in the implementation ;))
Are there any other (not yet supported) platforms with similar (or other
unrelated, but hard to support because of the current architecture of
the kernel) problems?
(No, I have no secret trumps up my sleeve, I'm just curious.)
/David
_ _
// David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
