On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 08:24 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > There is a little inconsistency, that arch_calc_vm_prot_bits > > > and arch_vm_get_page_prot just handle the exceptional flag (SAO), > > > whereas arch_validate_prot handles all of them; but I don't feel > > > so strongly about that to suggest resubmission. > > > > > > And regarding VM_SAO added to include/linux/mm.h in 3/6: although > > > it's odd to be weaving back and forth between arch-specific and > > > common, it's already the case that mman definitions and pgtable > > > definitions are arch-specific but mm.h common: I'm much happier > > > to have VM_SAO defined once there as Dave has it, than get into > > > arch-specific vm_flags. > > > > > > Is someone going to be asking for PROT_WC shortly? > > > > I'll definitely come with PROT_ENDIAN soon :-) (ie, some powerpc > > processors can have a per-page endian flag that when set causes all > > load/store instructions on this are to be byte-flipped, support for > > this > > feature has been requested for some time, and now I have the > > infrastructure to do it). > > BTW. Do we have your ack ?
To PROT_SAO? Okay, Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Andrew, what tree should this go via ? I have further powerpc patches > depending on this one... so on one hand I'd be happy to take it, but > on the other hand, it's more likely to clash with other things... > > Maybe I should check how it applies on top of linux-next. > > Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
