Re: [PATCH 2.6] pte_read confusion resolved (was Re: [PATCH] A BTFIXUP'd fix for pte_read())

2005-03-31 Thread David S. Miller
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:08:40 -0600 "Tom 'spot' Callaway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 01:13 -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 15:32 -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > >>> I disagree with Tom's patch in that it puts this huge switch() > >>> statement in

[PATCH 2.6] pte_read confusion resolved (was Re: [PATCH] A BTFIXUP'd fix for pte_read())

2005-03-03 Thread Tom 'spot' Callaway
On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 01:13 -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 15:32 -0800, David S. Miller wrote: >>> I disagree with Tom's patch in that it puts this huge switch() >>> statement inline. The whole point of BTFIXUP_HIGH() is that it >>> resolves the call to a single instruc