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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
