* Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> wrote:
> > But given that most architectures will be just fine reusing
> > the already existing generic PROT_NONE machinery, the far
> > better approach is to do what we've been doing in generic
> > kernel code for the last 10 years: offer a default generic
> > version, and then to offer per arch hooks on a strict
> > as-needed basis, if they want or need to do something weird
> > ...
>
> If they are *not* fine with it, it's a large retrofit because
> the PROT_NONE machinery has been hard-coded throughout. [...]
That was a valid criticism for earlier versions of the NUMA
patches - but should much less be the case in the latest
iterations of the patches:
- it has generic pte_numa() / pmd_numa() instead of using
prot_none() directly
- the key utility functions are named using the _numa pattern,
not *_prot_none*() anymore.
Let us know if you can still see such instances - it's probably
simple oversight.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
