Hugh Dickins wrote:
I'm off to bed, but since your appetite for looking at patches is greater than mine, I'll throw what I'm currently testing over the wall to you now. Against 2.6.11-rc4-bk9, but my starting point was obviously your patches. Not yet split up, but clearly should be.
Yeah you've snuck a few other clever things in there ;)
Includes mm/swapfile.c which you missed. I'm inlining pmd and pud
Thanks.
levels, but not pte and pgd levels. No description yet, sorry.
OK - that's probably sufficient for debugging. There is only so much that can go wrong in the middle levels... how does it look performance wise? (I can give it a test when it gets split out)
One point worth making, I do believe throughout that whatever the address layout, "end" cannot be 0 - BUG_ON(addr >= end) assures.
OK after sleeping on it, I'm warming to your way.
I don't think it makes something like David's modifications any easier, but mine didn't go a long way to that end either. And being a more incremental approach gives us more room to move in future (for example, maybe toward something that really *will* accommodate the bitmap walking code nicely).
So I'd be pretty happy for you to queue this up with Andrew for 2.6.12. Anyone else?
Nick
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
