Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables.

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:06:18 +0100 Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 10:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > I got x86-64 compiled by removing the #include <asm/pgalloc.h> from
> > > asm-generic/tlb.h. But who knows what will break if the include is
> > > missing .. I'll cross compile some of the other architectures next.
> > > 
> > 
> > urgh, well, thanks for trying.  If there's significant risk factor (or
> > hassle) in fixing the macros then I'd suggest we not do it for now - it's a
> > separate project.
> 
> I'm still at it. I does make sense to convert the damn macros to inline
> functions. The question now is the order of things, the macro cleanup
> first or the sub-page page tables first? I would prefer the sub-page
> page tables first since that code has been hanging around in -mm for a
> while and could go upstream after I regenerated the patch and test
> compiled it again. We do need it for KVM and we want to push our KVM
> patches for s390 soon.

I'd suggest do the macro ceanup later.  That's the sort of thing which we
can/should trickle through arch maintainers.

--
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/