Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:52:14 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/7] Introduce the pagetable_operations and associated helper macros. |
| |
Adam Litke wrote: >> struct vm_operations_struct * vm_ops; >> + const struct pagetable_operations_struct * pagetable_ops;
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:18:30PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Can you remind me why this isn't in vm_ops? > Also, it is going to be hugepage-only, isn't it? So should the naming be > changed to reflect that? And #ifdef it...
ISTR potential ppc64 users coming out of the woodwork for something I didn't recognize the name of, but I may be confusing that with your patch. I can implement additional users (and useful ones at that) needing this in particular if desired.
Adam Litke wrote: >> +struct pagetable_operations_struct { >> + int (*fault)(struct mm_struct *mm,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:18:30PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > I got dibs on fault ;) > My callback is a sanitised one that basically abstracts the details of the > virtual memory mapping away, so it is usable by drivers and filesystems. > You actually want to bypass the normal fault handling because it doesn't > know how to deal with your virtual memory mapping. Hmm, the best suggestion > I can come up with is handle_mm_fault... unless you can think of a better > name for me to use.
Two fault handling methods callbacks raise an eyebrow over here at least. I was vaguely hoping for unification of the fault handling callbacks.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |