[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] mspec - special memory driver and do_no_pfn handler
    On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 05:04:14PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > >
    > > hm. Is that a superset of ->nopage? Should we be looking at
    > > migrating over to ->nopfn, retire ->nopage?
    > >
    > > <looks at the ghastly stuff in do_no_page>
    > >
    > > Maybe not...
    > Yeah, absolutely _not_.
    > If we wouldn't pass the "struct page" around, we wouldn't have anything to
    > synchronize with, and each nopage() function would have to do rmap stuff.
    > That's actually how nopage() worked a long time ago (not rmap, but it was
    > up the the low-level function to do all the page table logic etc).
    > Switching to returning a structured return value and letting the generic
    > VM code handle all the locking and the races was a _huge_ improvement.
    > So yes, the modern "->nopage()" interface is less flexible, but it's less
    > flexible for a very good reason.
    > Quite frankly, I don't think nopfn() is a good interface. It's only usable
    > for one single thing, so trying to claim that it's a generic VM op is
    > really not valid. If (and that's a big if) we need this interface, we
    > should just do it inside mm/memory.c instead of playing games as if it was
    > generic.

    My understanding was Carsten Otte was also interested in a do_no_pfn() for

    Casten, is that still your intention?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-03-17 03:15    [W:0.048 / U:0.204 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site