NAK NAK NAK.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijls...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> +#define __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_ACCESSIBLE
> +static inline int pte_accessible(pte_t a)
Stop doing this f*cking crazy ad-hoc "I have some other name
available" #defines.
Use the same name, for chissake! Don't make up new random names.
Just do
#define pte_accessible pte_accessible
and then you can use
#ifndef pte_accessible
to define the generic thing. Instead of having this INSANE "two
different names for the same f*cking thing" crap.
Stop it. Really.
Also, this:
> +#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_ACCESSIBLE
> +#define pte_accessible(pte) pte_present(pte)
> +#endif
looks unsafe and like a really bad idea.
You should probably do
#ifndef pte_accessible
#define pte_accessible(pte) ((void)(pte),1)
#endif
because you have no idea if other architectures do
(a) the same trick as x86 does for PROT_NONE (I can already tell you
from a quick grep that ia64, m32r, m68k and sh do it)
(b) might not perhaps be caching non-present pte's anyway
So NAK on this whole patch. It's bad. It's ugly, it's wrong, and it's
actively buggy.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
