On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 04:35:06PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > And it does miss arm, the only arch which actually needs changing > right now, if we simply restore the original values which Nick shifted > - although arm references the VM_FAULT_ codes in some places, it also > uses "> 0". arm26 looks at first as if it needs changing too, but > a closer look shows it's remapping the faults and is okay - agreed?
Your patch doesn't look right. Firstly, I'd rather stay away from switch() if at all possible - past experience has shown that it generates inherently poor code on ARM. Whether that's still true or not I've no idea, but I don't particularly want to find out at the moment. > Restore VM_FAULT_SIGBUS, VM_FAULT_MINOR and VM_FAULT_MAJOR to their > original values, so that arches which have them hardcoded will still > work before they're cleaned up. And correct arm to use the VM_FAULT_ > codes throughout, not assuming MINOR and MAJOR are the only ones > 0. And the above rules this out. As I say, I fixed ARM this morning, so changing these constants will break it again. Let's just wait for things to stabilise instead of trying to race with architecture maintainers... -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - 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/
