Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: replace __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL

2018-04-09 Thread David Rientjes
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > -#ifdef __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL > > # define HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL 1 > > #else > > # define HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL 0 > > I'd say kill this odd indirection and just use the > CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL symbol directl

Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: replace __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL

2018-04-09 Thread Christoph Hellwig
> -#ifdef __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL > # define HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL 1 > #else > # define HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL 0 I'd say kill this odd indirection and just use the CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL symbol directly. ___ linux-snp

Re: [PATCH v6 04/16] arc: Switch to generic free_initrd_mem.

2018-04-09 Thread Vineet Gupta
On 04/01/2018 08:00 AM, Shea Levy wrote: The first patch in this series added a weakly-defined generic implementation, which is functionally identical to the architecture-specific one removed here. Series boot-tested on RISC-V (which now uses the generic implementation) and x86_64 (which doesn't

Re: [PATCH 0/3] move __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL in Kconfig

2018-04-09 Thread Laurent Dufour
On 09/04/2018 18:03, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On 04/09/2018 06:57 AM, Laurent Dufour wrote: >> The per architecture __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL is defined statically in the >> per architecture header files. This doesn't allow to make other >> configuration dependent on it. > > So I understand this series

Re: [PATCH 0/3] move __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL in Kconfig

2018-04-09 Thread Vineet Gupta
On 04/09/2018 06:57 AM, Laurent Dufour wrote: The per architecture __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL is defined statically in the per architecture header files. This doesn't allow to make other configuration dependent on it. So I understand this series has more "readability" value and I'm fine with this

Re: [PATCH 0/3] move __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL in Kconfig

2018-04-09 Thread Jerome Glisse
On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 04:07:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 09-04-18 15:57:06, Laurent Dufour wrote: > > The per architecture __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL is defined statically in the > > per architecture header files. This doesn't allow to make other > > configuration dependent on it. > > >

[PATCH 2/3] mm: replace __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL

2018-04-09 Thread Laurent Dufour
Replace __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL by the new configuration variable CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL. Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour --- Documentation/features/vm/pte_special/arch-support.txt | 2 +- include/linux/pfn_t.h | 4 ++-- mm/gup.c

Re: [PATCH 0/3] move __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL in Kconfig

2018-04-09 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 09-04-18 15:57:06, Laurent Dufour wrote: > The per architecture __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL is defined statically in the > per architecture header files. This doesn't allow to make other > configuration dependent on it. > > This series is moving the __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL into the Kconfig file

[PATCH 3/3] mm: remove __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL

2018-04-09 Thread Laurent Dufour
It is now replaced by Kconfig variable CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL. Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour --- arch/arc/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 -- arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h| 1 - arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 -- arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/p

[PATCH 1/3] mm: introduce ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL

2018-04-09 Thread Laurent Dufour
Currently the PTE special supports is turned on in per architecture header files. Most of the time, it is defined in arch/*/include/asm/pgtable.h depending or not on some other per architecture static definition. This patch introduce a new configuration variable to manage this directly in the Kcon

[PATCH 0/3] move __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL in Kconfig

2018-04-09 Thread Laurent Dufour
The per architecture __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL is defined statically in the per architecture header files. This doesn't allow to make other configuration dependent on it. This series is moving the __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL into the Kconfig files, setting it automatically when architectures was already

Re: DRM_UDL and GPU under Xserver

2018-04-09 Thread Alexey Brodkin
Hi Daniel, On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 11:17 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 08:55:36AM +, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 10:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 06:39:41PM +, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > > > Hi Dani

Re: DRM_UDL and GPU under Xserver

2018-04-09 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 08:55:36AM +, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 10:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 06:39:41PM +, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > > Hi Daniel, all, > > [snip] > > > > Ok it was quite some time ago so I forgot about th

Re: DRM_UDL and GPU under Xserver

2018-04-09 Thread Alexey Brodkin
Hi Daniel, On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 10:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 06:39:41PM +, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > Hi Daniel, all, [snip] > > Ok it was quite some time ago so I forgot about that completely. > > I really made one trivial change in xf86-video-armada: > >

Re: DRM_UDL and GPU under Xserver

2018-04-09 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 06:39:41PM +, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Hi Daniel, all, > > On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 15:44 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:10:03AM +, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > > Hi Daniel, Lucas, > > > > > > On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 12:59 +0200, Daniel Vetter wr