On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:45:14 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 05:44 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 11:08 +0400, Yuri Tikhonov wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > The following patch adds support for 256KB PAGE_SIZE on ppc44x-based > > > boards. > > > The applications to be run on the kernel with 256KB PAGE_SIZE have to be > > > built using the modified version of binutils, where the MAXPAGESIZE > > > definition is set to 0x40000 (as opposite to standard 0x10000). > > > > Sorry, this is against arch/ppc which is bug fix only. New features > > should be done against arch/powerpc. Also, I'd rather see something > > along the lines of hugetlbfs support instead. > > I slightly disagree on that one. It does make sense in embedded > applications to use larger page sizes like that to compensate for small > TLBs, and hugetlbfs has serious constraints that may well make it > impractical. Out of curiosity, what constraints are those? > Based on that, I'd be tempted to let that in provided it doesn't > requires ugly hacks, which seems to be the case. It still needs to be > adapted to arch/powerpc however, and get closer scrutiny that I didn't > have time to do yet. > > You are the maintainer, so you decide, but my opinion here is that > wanting that is fair enough. I always reserve the right to change my mind. If something makes sense and the code is decent enough then it might very well be acceptable. Requiring a modified binutils makes me a bit nervous though. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
