On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 20:31 -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:06:28 +0000 (GMT) > Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've not seen Dave's bitmap walking functions (for clearing?), > > would they fit in better with my way? >
Hugh: I'll have more of a look through your patch when I get some time... to be honest I'm not too worried either way, so long as one or the other gets in. Very trivial point, but I'm not sure that I like the name p?d_limit... maybe p?d_span or _span_end... hmm, they're not really pleasing either. You _are_ repeating a bit of mindless loop accounting in every page table walk, and it isn't completely clear to me that it is giving you much more flexibility (than for_each_*). But my loops _are_ a bit contorted. > This is what Nick is referring to: > [snip] > It's easy to toy with the sparc64 optimization on other platforms, > just add the necessary hacks to pmd_set and pgd_set, allocation > of pmd and pgd tables David: just an implementation detail that I had meant to bring up earlier - would it feel like less of a hack to put these in pmd_populate and pgd_populate? Nick - 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/
