Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757931Ab1BKSmr (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:42:47 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:36174 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752146Ab1BKSmq (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:42:46 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:29:49 -0800 From: Greg KH To: "K. Y. Srinivasan" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@linuxdriverproject.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Hank Janssen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3]: Staging: hv: Use native page allocation/free functions Message-ID: <20110211182949.GA10751@suse.de> References: <1297447140-21777-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1297447140-21777-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1026 Lines: 28 On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:59:00AM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > --- a/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c > @@ -230,7 +230,12 @@ int hv_init(void) > * Allocate the hypercall page memory > * virtaddr = osd_page_alloc(1); > */ > - virtaddr = osd_virtual_alloc_exec(PAGE_SIZE); > +#ifdef __x86_64__ > + virtaddr = __vmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL, PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC); > +#else > + virtaddr = __vmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL, > + __pgprot(__PAGE_KERNEL & (~_PAGE_NX))); > +#endif I'm not saying this patch is wrong at all, but I still don't understand why this is different depending on the architecture of the machine. Why is this necessary, it should be ok to do the same type of allocation no matter what the processor is, right? thanks, greg k-h -- 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/