Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932319Ab1BKVav (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:30:51 -0500 Received: from smtp.microsoft.com ([131.107.115.214]:8204 "EHLO smtp.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932191Ab1BKVau convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:30:50 -0500 From: Hank Janssen To: Greg KH , KY Srinivasan CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devel@linuxdriverproject.org" , "virtualization@lists.osdl.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3]: Staging: hv: Use native page allocation/free functions Thread-Topic: [PATCH 1/3]: Staging: hv: Use native page allocation/free functions Thread-Index: AQHLyhRG+iGS6ar1cEyXWS7ZOiGYHJP9JUiAgAAo0wCAAAfOAP//evew Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:30:49 +0000 Message-ID: <8AFC7968D54FB448A30D8F38F259C56233F93ED0@TK5EX14MBXC114.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> References: <1297447140-21777-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> <20110211182949.GA10751@suse.de> <20110211212352.GA10845@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20110211212352.GA10845@suse.de> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.123.12] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1727 Lines: 43 > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@suse.de] On Friday, February 11, 2011 1:24 PM > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 08:55:56PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > 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? > > > > You are right Greg; I don't think there is a need to specify different > > page protection bits based on the architecture - PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC > should be enough. > > I thought so, but for some reason Hank said there this was needed. > Hank, is it still true? I recall we did it for older versions of Linux but I do not recall why. Something from way before 2.6.18, the reason of which I seem to have Purged due to age :) > > > However, this is the code that is currently in the tree - refer to osd.c. > > Oh, I remember, it's not a critique of this patch, it just reminded me of this > question I always had for this code. > > > If it is ok with you, I could submit an additional patch to clean this up. > > If Hank says it is ok, and you all test it to verify nothing breaks, please send it > on. If you could accept the patch as is and I will work with Ky to see if nothing breaks If we change this part to what you are suggesting? If nothing breaks we will submit A followup patch to remove those lines. Hank. -- 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/