On Friday 02 September 2005 22:17, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:37:28PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Also look, on the "set_pte" theme, at the attached patch.
> + WARN_ON(!pte_young(*pte) || pte_write(*pte) && !pte_dirty(*pte));
> This one has been firing on me, and I
On Friday 02 September 2005 22:17, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:37:28PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
Also look, on the set_pte theme, at the attached patch.
+ WARN_ON(!pte_young(*pte) || pte_write(*pte) !pte_dirty(*pte));
This one has been firing on me, and I decided to
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:37:28PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Also look, on the "set_pte" theme, at the attached patch.
>
> + WARN_ON(!pte_young(*pte) || pte_write(*pte) && !pte_dirty(*pte));
>
> This one has been firing on me, and I decided to
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:37:28PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Also look, on the "set_pte" theme, at the attached patch.
+ WARN_ON(!pte_young(*pte) || pte_write(*pte) && !pte_dirty(*pte));
This one has been firing on me, and I decided to figure out why. The
culprit is this code in
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:37:28PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
Also look, on the set_pte theme, at the attached patch.
+ WARN_ON(!pte_young(*pte) || pte_write(*pte) !pte_dirty(*pte));
This one has been firing on me, and I decided to figure out why. The
culprit is this code in
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:37:28PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
Also look, on the set_pte theme, at the attached patch.
+ WARN_ON(!pte_young(*pte) || pte_write(*pte) !pte_dirty(*pte));
This one has been firing on me, and I decided to figure out
On Saturday 30 July 2005 18:02, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:56:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As obvious, a "core code nice cleanup" is not a "stability-friendly
> > patch" so usual care applies.
> These look reasonable, as they are what we discussed in Ottawa.
> I'll
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:37:28PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Just noticed: you can drop them (except the first, which is a nice cleanup).
>
> set_pte handles that, and include/asm-generic/pgtable.h uses coherently
> set_pte_at. I've checked UML by examining "grep pte", and either mk_pte or
>
On Saturday 30 July 2005 18:02, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:56:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As obvious, a "core code nice cleanup" is not a "stability-friendly
> > patch" so usual care applies.
>
> These look reasonable, as they are what we discussed in Ottawa.
>
>
On Saturday 30 July 2005 18:02, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:56:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As obvious, a core code nice cleanup is not a stability-friendly
patch so usual care applies.
These look reasonable, as they are what we discussed in Ottawa.
I'll put them
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:37:28PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
Just noticed: you can drop them (except the first, which is a nice cleanup).
set_pte handles that, and include/asm-generic/pgtable.h uses coherently
set_pte_at. I've checked UML by examining grep pte, and either mk_pte or
On Saturday 30 July 2005 18:02, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:56:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As obvious, a core code nice cleanup is not a stability-friendly
patch so usual care applies.
These look reasonable, as they are what we discussed in Ottawa.
I'll put them
On Saturday 30 July 2005 18:02, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:56:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As obvious, a "core code nice cleanup" is not a "stability-friendly
> > patch" so usual care applies.
>
> These look reasonable, as they are what we discussed in Ottawa.
>
>
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:56:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As obvious, a "core code nice cleanup" is not a "stability-friendly patch" so
> usual care applies.
These look reasonable, as they are what we discussed in Ottawa.
I'll put them in my tree and see if I see any problems. I
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:56:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As obvious, a core code nice cleanup is not a stability-friendly patch so
usual care applies.
These look reasonable, as they are what we discussed in Ottawa.
I'll put them in my tree and see if I see any problems. I would
On Saturday 30 July 2005 18:02, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:56:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As obvious, a core code nice cleanup is not a stability-friendly
patch so usual care applies.
These look reasonable, as they are what we discussed in Ottawa.
I'll put them
There is a lot of code which is duplicated between the 2 and 3 level
implementation, with the only difference that the 3-level implementation is a
bit more generalized (instead of accessing directly pte_t.pte, it uses the
appropriate access macros).
So this code is joined together.
As obvious,
There is a lot of code which is duplicated between the 2 and 3 level
implementation, with the only difference that the 3-level implementation is a
bit more generalized (instead of accessing directly pte_t.pte, it uses the
appropriate access macros).
So this code is joined together.
As obvious,
18 matches
Mail list logo
