* Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> wrote:
> > Why not use something what we have in numa/core already:
> >
> > f05ea0948708 mm/mpol: Create special PROT_NONE infrastructure
> >
>
> Because it's hard-coded to PROT_NONE underneath which I've
> complained about before. [...]
To which I replied that this is the current generic
implementation, the moment some different architecture comes
around we can accomodate it - on a strictly as-needed basis.
It is *better* and cleaner to not expose random arch hooks but
let the core kernel modification be documented in the very patch
that the architecture support patch makes use of it.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
