On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:55:54PM +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Adam Litke wrote:
> > Andrew, given the favorable review of these patches the last time around,
> > would
> > you consider them for the -mm tree? Does anyone else have any objections?
>
> I quite fail to underst
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Adam Litke wrote:
> Andrew, given the favorable review of these patches the last time around,
> would
> you consider them for the -mm tree? Does anyone else have any objections?
I quite fail to understand the enthusiasm for these patches. All they
do is make the already ugl
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:05:02PM -0700, Adam Litke wrote:
> Andrew, given the favorable review of these patches the last time
> around, would you consider them for the -mm tree? Does anyone else
> have any objections?
We need a new round of commentary for how it should integrate with
Nick Piggi
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:05 -0700, Adam Litke wrote:
> For the common case (vma->pagetable_ops == NULL), we do almost the
> same thing as the current code: load and test. The third instruction
> is different in that we jump for the common case instead of jumping in
> the hugetlb case. I don't thi
Andrew, given the favorable review of these patches the last time around, would
you consider them for the -mm tree? Does anyone else have any objections?
The page tables for hugetlb mappings are handled differently than page tables
for normal pages. Rather than integrating multiple page size su
5 matches
Mail list logo
