Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com> wrote: > > > Either that, or add a new interface function > > > > int mmu_gather_is_full_mm(mmu_gather *tlb); > > > > and use it... > > > > How implementation independent should it be? Currently, there is only one > field in the mmu_gather structure that must be preserved. However, if we > want to make the interface truly implementation independent, it seems > like we should define something like: > > if (need_resched()) { > struct mmu_gather_state state; > tlb_mmu_gather_save_state(*tlbp, &state); > tlb_finish_mmu(*tlbp, tlb_start, start); > ... > *tlbp = tlb_mmu_gather_restore_state(&state); > } > > Is this overkill? Think so ;) The `full_mm_flush' boolean is the only state thing we can pass into tlb_gather_mmu anyway. > > Should we use the patch given above for 2.6.0 & replace it with an implementation > independent interface for 2.6.1? Just the little wrapper which doesn't assume the presence of mmu_gather.full_mm should suffice. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Wed Nov 12 22:28:02 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:20 EST