Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759812AbYBRM1z (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:27:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752290AbYBRM1r (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:27:47 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54650 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752242AbYBRM1q (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:27:46 -0500 To: David Miller Cc: tilman@imap.cc, bunk@kernel.org, elendil@planet.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: Unable to continue testing of 2.6.25 From: Andi Kleen References: <200802171025.30590.elendil@planet.nl> <20080217131611.GA1403@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <47B88A08.2070902@imap.cc> <20080217.183330.34203930.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:27:45 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20080217.183330.34203930.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Sun\, 17 Feb 2008 18\:33\:30 -0800 \(PST\)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1558 Lines: 38 David Miller writes: > From: Tilman Schmidt > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:24:56 +0100 > >> No, that's not the real problem. Even if the kernel didn't lack >> any required functionality and it could all be done today without >> VirtualBox, pulling the rug from underneath it like that leaves >> all those who are currently relying on it without the ability to >> continue testing newer kernels until they find the time to redesign >> their working environment. > > No, it is VirtualBox's problem. Nobody outside of the kernel > should be using that symbol, > it can only be used for totally > unsupportable things as far as upstream is concerned. Creating any uncacheable or write protected mappings in unsupportable? I suspect you would have a hard time actually justifying this. That's a relatively common and useful operation in device drivers. The only special case I would agree with you is doing write-combined mappings using this which is indeed generally unsupported yet on x86 before the full PAT infrastructure goes in (but I cannot imagine VirtualBox would use WC for anything) Most likely if they just want to write protect something they should either use the new interface or just open code it using lookup_address() / change ptes / flush tlbs. -Andi -- 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/