Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262429AbUK3XbZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:31:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262459AbUK3Xa3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:30:29 -0500 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:37527 "EHLO gate.crashing.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262464AbUK3X2W (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:28:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [1/7] Xen VMM #3: add ptep_establish_new to make va available From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Ian Pratt Cc: Linux Kernel list , Steven.Hand@cl.cam.ac.uk, Christian.Limpach@cl.cam.ac.uk, Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk, Andrew Morton , "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:27:45 +1100 Message-Id: <1101857266.5174.26.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1000 Lines: 31 On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 23:05 +0000, Ian Pratt wrote: > I'd appreciate a pointer to the patch. Well, I was hoping that David would reply with one :) It wasn't ported to all archs tho, but I did ppc & ppc64, and he did x86 & sparc iirc > It may still be of some use to distinguish between call sites > where it is likely that mm == current->mm to avoid adding a > futile test in all the others. Maybe ... > > Is there also a need for ptep_establish and ptep_establish_new to be 2 > > different functions ? > > They allow different TLB invalidation behaviour. I guess it could > be one function with an extra arg. Not sure, my point is that we tend nowadays to have one abstraction per call site, and I wonder if it's the right way to go ... Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/