Re: pud_bad vs pud_bad

[Hugh Dickins]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > However... I forget how the folding works out.  The pgd in the 32-bit
> > PAE case used to have just the pfn and the present bit set in that
> > little array of four entries: if pud_bad() ends up getting applied
> > to that, I guess it will blow up.
> 
> Ah, that's a good point.
> 
> > If so, my preferred answer would actually be to make those 4 entries
> > look more like real ptes; but you may think I'm being a bit silly.
> 
> Hardware doesn't allow it.  It will explode (well, trap) if you set anything
> other than P in the top level.

Oh, interesting, I'd never realized that.

> By the by, what are the chances we'll be able to deprecate non-PAE 32-bit?

I sincerely hope 0!  I shed no tears at losing support for NUMAQ,
but why should we be forced to double all the 32-bit ptes?  You want
us all to be using NX?  Or you just want to cut your test/edit matrix -
that I can well understand!

Hugh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/