Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] mm: distinguish PTE table storage from PTE values

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 7/29/26 13:33, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> On 29/07/2026 12:05 pm, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 7/29/26 12:13, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> May be we need the generic hw_pte_t implementation as { pte_t pte; }
>>> right away?
>>
>> Indeed, that makes sense. We just need a way for the architecture to opt-in that
>> it did the conversion.
> Yeah and architecture cannot opt-in until its converted. So we should leave
> it to architecture to define hw_pte_t.

In the context of this series, we should have something like an
CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_XXX and select the definition based on that.

So we'd have a generic variant.

-- 
Cheers,

David