Re: [patch] mspec - special memory driver and do_no_pfn handler

From: Robin Holt <>
Date: 2006-03-17 13:13:04
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-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Fri Mar 17 13:13:57 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-17 13:14:08 EST