Hi Ben, On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:41:48 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- linux-work.orig/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h 2008-12-03 > 13:50:01.000000000 +1100 > +++ linux-work/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h 2008-12-03 13:50:18.000000000 > +1100 > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ > .previous > .endm > #else > - .macro EMIT_BUG_ENTRY addr,file,line,flags > +.macro EMIT_BUG_ENTRY addr,file,line,flags
Please don't make unrelated trivial fixups - they just make us look hard
to see if something really changed.
> -/*
> - * switch_mm is the entry point called from the architecture independent
> +/* switch_mm is the entry point called from the architecture independent
The same goes for just changing the comment style away from the usual ...
> -/*
> - * After we have set current->mm to a new value, this activates
> +/* After we have set current->mm to a new value, this activates
Ditto
> --- linux-work.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S 2008-12-03
> 13:50:01.000000000 +1100
> +++ linux-work/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S 2008-12-03 13:50:18.000000000
> +1100
> @@ -1050,7 +1051,7 @@ start_here:
> * We do this here because we know the mmu is disabled, and
> * will be enabled for real in just a few instructions.
> */
> - lis r5, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> + lis r5, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^
Is this right?
> +++ linux-work/arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_hash32.c 2008-12-03
> 13:50:18.000000000 +1100
> +/*
> + * This function defines the mapping from contexts to VSIDs (virtual
> + * segment IDs). We use a skew on both the context and the high 4 bits
> + * of the 32-bit virtual address (the "effective segment ID") in order
> + * to spread out the entries in the MMU hash table. Note, if this
> + * function is changed then arch/ppc/mm/hashtable.S will have to be
> + * changed to correspond.
> + */
> +#define CTX_TO_VSID(ctx, va) (((ctx) * (897 * 16) + ((va) >> 28) * 0x111) \
> + & 0xffffff)
Any reason this is not a static inline function? Hmmm, actually it
doesn't look like it is used anywhere ... I guess its just for
documentation?
> +++ linux-work/arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_nohash.c 2008-12-03
> 13:50:18.000000000 +1100
> +#ifdef CONFIG_8xx
> +#define NO_CONTEXT 16
> +#define LAST_CONTEXT 15
> +#define FIRST_CONTEXT 0
> +
> +#elif defined(CONFIG_4xx)
> +#define NO_CONTEXT 256
> +#define LAST_CONTEXT 255
> +#define FIRST_CONTEXT 1
> +
> +#elif defined(CONFIG_E200) || defined(CONFIG_E500)
> +#define NO_CONTEXT 256
> +#define LAST_CONTEXT 255
> +#define FIRST_CONTEXT 1
Why not combine these last two?
> +static unsigned long next_mmu_context;
> + /* free up context `next_mmu_context' */
> + /* if we shouldn't free context 0, don't... */
> + if (next_mmu_context < FIRST_CONTEXT)
If FIRST_CONTEXT is 0, this will generate a compiler warning (as
next_mmu_context can't be < 0).
> +config PPC_MMU_NOHASH_32
> + def_bool y
> + depends on PPC_MMU_NOHASH && PPC32
> +
> +config PPC_MMU_NOHASH_64
> + def_bool y
> + depends on PPC_MMU_NOHASH && PPC64
Neither of these are used anywhere.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgp6MT4ne2XC4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
