2002-12-13 10:47:52

by Eyal Lebedinsky

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.20-rmap15b - compile failure

I had a failure building NVIDIA_kernel/nv.c (the nvidia driver):
http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86_40/1.0-4191/NVIDIA_kernel-1.0-4191.tar.gz

It uses
pte = *pte_offset(pg_mid_dir, address);
but this patch removes pte_offset().

1) what is the correct fix (use pte_offset_kernel?)?

2) in general, is it wise to remove pte_offset() or should it
be left for compatability?

I should clearly say that I am not familiar with the workings of this
patch, but find that it is likely to break drivers that are not in
the kernel tree (assuming you patch them).

--
Eyal Lebedinsky ([email protected]) <http://samba.org/eyal/>


2002-12-13 11:23:10

by Rik van Riel

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.20-rmap15b - compile failure

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:

> I had a failure building NVIDIA_kernel/nv.c (the nvidia driver):
> http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86_40/1.0-4191/NVIDIA_kernel-1.0-4191.tar.gz
>
> It uses
> pte = *pte_offset(pg_mid_dir, address);
> but this patch removes pte_offset().
>
> 1) what is the correct fix (use pte_offset_kernel?)?

I'd assume so, but since I don't know exactly what the nvidia
driver does I can't tell you for sure.

> 2) in general, is it wise to remove pte_offset() or should it
> be left for compatability?

It should be removed, otherwise some drivers would compile
but silently fail (because pte_offset() wouldn't be the right
choice from the two alternatives.

regards,

Rik
--
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/