Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86: unify pgtable*.h

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:35:36PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkclean(pte_t pte)	{ set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_DIRTY)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkold(pte_t pte)	{ set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_ACCESSED)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_wrprotect(pte_t pte)	{ set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_RW)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkexec(pte_t pte)	{ set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_NX)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkdirty(pte_t pte)	{ set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) | _PAGE_DIRTY)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkyoung(pte_t pte)	{ set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) | _PAGE_ACCESSED)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkwrite(pte_t pte)	{ set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) | _PAGE_RW)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkhuge(pte_t pte)	{ set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) | _PAGE_PSE)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_clrhuge(pte_t pte)	{ set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_PSE)); return pte; }


Is set_pte() really supposed to be used here? pte_val() and __pte()
are already hooked by paravirt_ops if needed, and it looks like we
don't want to call paravirt_ops set_pte() here.

I don't know if I understood fully the semantics of set_pte(), but
it seems that the paravirt_ops implementations expect set_pte() to be
called for PTEs that are actually inside existing pagetables (and not
for short-lived stack variables, like on this case).

Was this tested under Xen and/or VMI?

-- 
Eduardo
--
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/