[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:0.038 / U:101.712 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site