[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [git pull] x86 fixes

Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> writes:

> Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Ingo Molnar <> writes:
>>> Linus,
>>> Please pull the latest x86 fixes git tree from:
>>> git:// x86-fixes-for-linus
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ingo
>>> ------------------>
>>> Jan Kratochvil (1):
>>> x86: fix crash due to missing debugctlmsr on AMD K6-3
>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge (2):
>>> x86: rename PTE_MASK to PTE_PFN_MASK
>>> x86: add PTE_FLAGS_MASK
>> Are you serious? It goes _this_ fast? The patch came into my mbox at
>> 8:00am this morning and you push it to Linus at 4:00pm already?
>> What about the inconsistency it introduces? When I look at PAGE_MASK
>> for example, it masks out the PAGE offset. PTE_MASK masks out PTE
>> specifca from a value.
>> Now, I assume PTE_PFN_MASK masks out the PFN. Oh, wait, it masks the
>> protection bits.
> PAGE_MASK turns an address into its page address.
> PTE_PFN_MASK takes a pte value and returns the pte's pfn portion
> (which is shifted so it's actually a page address).

Okay, now it makes sense.

I just always thought of PAGE_MASK as `mask out sub-page granularity'.

> In both cases, the X_MASK terminology means that X is extracted, not
> excluded. Which makes sense; if you have a packed bitfield containing
> multiple values, you wouldn't expect X to be the list of things *not*
> extracted.



 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-22 17:25    [W:0.222 / U:2.224 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site