Re: CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables.

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Martin Schwidefsky
Date: Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 2:41 am

On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 04:25 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:

The patch was posted multiple times on linux-arch and it has been part
of -mm for 3 months. Plenty of time for the arch maintainers to notice.
And without the pte_pfn_t change it would compile on a nommu
architecture even without the typedef. That is why I didn't add the new
typedef to the nommu archs. Which turned out to be a mistake after the
pte_pfn_t change has been added but the problem is fixed with the patch
sent yesterday, isn't?

-- 
blue skies,
  Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Ingo Molnar, (Fri Feb 8, 4:04 pm)
Re: CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Ingo Molnar, (Fri Feb 8, 4:15 pm)
Re: CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Martin Schwidefsky, (Sat Feb 9, 3:06 am)
Re: CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Ingo Molnar, (Sat Feb 9, 3:37 am)
Re: CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Martin Schwidefsky, (Sat Feb 9, 3:56 am)
Re: CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Mike Frysinger, (Sat Feb 9, 10:56 am)
Re: CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Martin Schwidefsky, (Sun Feb 10, 2:17 am)
Re: CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Mike Frysinger, (Sun Feb 10, 2:25 am)
Re: CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Martin Schwidefsky, (Sun Feb 10, 2:41 am)
Re: CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Mike Frysinger, (Sun Feb 10, 3:06 am)