Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: PTE access rules & abstraction | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Date | Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:44:23 +1000 |
| |
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 11:15 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > The ptep_modify_prot_start/commit pair specifies a single pte update in > such a way to allow more implementation flexibility - ie, there's no > naked requirement for an atomic fetch-and-clear operation. I chose the > transaction-like terminology to emphasize that the start/commit > functions must be strictly paired; there's no way to fail or abort the > "transaction". A whole group of those start/commit pairs can be batched > together without affecting their semantics.
I still can't see the point of having now 3 functions instead of just one such as ptep_modify_protection(). I don't see what it buys you other than adding gratuituous new interfaces.
Ben;.
| |