Re: CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables.

[Mike Frysinger]

On Feb 9, 2008 5:56 AM, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 11:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > i think the worst is over already and i'm reasonably sure that there are
> > no more bugs in it - this _is_ a 1:1 patch after all, so in theory the
> > worst side-effect should be build breakages due to include file
> > spaghetti. The window for this particular breakage was just 256 commits,
> > that's OK i think.
>
> Except for the breakage of all nommu architectures .. they need the
> pgtable_t as well due to the pte_fn_t type.

so why wasnt this in the original patch ?  why do no-mmu arches have
to add the pgtable_t typedefs themselves ?
-mike
--
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/