Hugh Dickins wrote:
quoted text
>> And can we agree to never EVER use that PAGE_MASK thing (which was only 
>> ever meant to work on *addresses*) for any pte operations (including the 
>> definition of PTE_MASK)? Because PAGE_MASK is very much the word-size, and 
>> in 32-bit PAE, the page table entry is bigger.
>>
>> IOE, PTE_MASK should be a "pteval_t". And it should have absolutely 
>> *nothing* to do with PAGE_MASK. EVER.
>>     
>
> Yes, Jeremy makes it a pteval_t.  (My builds and Ingo's builds succeed,
> but I've not worked out how that goes down in assembly: there was an
> _AT macro in there before, which you've kept too - Jeremy?)
>   

I got rid of a bunch of _AT() uses because the constants aren't used in 
.S files anywhere.  Also, I couldn't see how to represent a 64-bit 
constant in assembler, so I wasn't sure of their correctness (the as 
manual is irritatingly vague on the matter).

quoted text
> Yes, I'm highly resistant to taking untested patches here.  The two-liner
> I sent last night was about my fifth attempt to get it working, and I did
> start off from a small PTE_MASK correction which didn't work at all.  It
> looked rather like yours, I guess I missed the  __PHYSICAL_LOW_BITS part.
> Jeremy's goes a lot further, he'll know the gotchas better.
>   

__PHYSICAL_LOW_BITS is a bit more elegant than what I did there (the 
problem is getting a physaddr_t-width PAGE_MASK).  But the formulation 
in my patch certainly works.

    J
--
unsubscribe notice
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/