On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 14:21 +0300, Yuri Tikhonov wrote: > > > I'm not sure about the above & PMD_MASK. Shouldn't we instead make it > > not build if (PKMAP_BASE & PMD_MASK) != 0 ? > > We separated the !4K_PAGES case here exactly because (PKMAP_BASE & > PMD_MASK) != 0 [see the comment to this chunk - why]. So, this'll turn > out to be broken if we follow your suggestion. Are there any reasons > why we should have PKMAP_BASE aligned on the PMD_SIZE boundary ?
No, you are right, so why do we need the & PMD_MASK in the 4k case ? What I don't get is why do we need a different formula for 4k and 64k but I might just be stupid :-) > These definitions seem to be related to the page table, so, as for me, > then pgtable.h is the better place for them. Though, as you want; > we'll move this to page_32.h. Well, I like having them next to the pte_t/pgd_t definitions since they relate directly to the size of those structures. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
