Re: [PATCH 0/7] [RFC] hugetlb: pagetable_operations API

[Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 19:43 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 10:31 -0800, Adam Litke wrote:
> > The page tables for hugetlb mappings are handled differently than page tables
> > for normal pages.  Rather than integrating multiple page size support into the
> > main VM (which would tremendously complicate the code) some hooks were created.
> > This allows hugetlb special cases to be handled "out of line" by a separate
> > interface.
> 
> ok it makes sense to clean this up.. what I don't like is that there
> STILL are all the double cases... for this to work and be worth it both
> the common case and the hugetlb case should be using the ops structure
> always! Anything else and you're just replacing bad code with bad
> code ;(

Hmm.  Do you think everyone would support an extra pointer indirection
for every handle_pte_fault() call?  If not, then I definitely wouldn't
mind creating a default_pagetable_ops and calling into that.

-- 
Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com)
IBM Linux Technology Center