Re: SHM stuff - Reason for Oopsen discovered

From: Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)
Date: Sun May 28 2000 - 03:46:19 EST


Christoph Rohland writes:
> Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> writes:
> > Christoph Rohland writes:
> > > Or the ARM one? (The basic principle of shm was always the same
> > > and this could have been noticed when the ARM pte handling was
> > > designed.)
> >
> > ARM pte handling has not changed since 2.3.0. I think you
> > overlooked the way the ARM handles its ptes. ;(
>
> Yes, you are right. I did not carefully check your explanation of the
> ARM pte handling. The breakage was of course introduced with S/390
> requirement to use something else than memset.

I'm not sure if you saw the other bits of the discussion on l-k, but I
think we need a pte_init() construct which will initialise a pte in an
architecture specific way to be "empty".

This could be done with your page-based approach, but we should kill the
PTRS_PER_PTE since that is not required here. What we actually want is
a PTRS_PER_PAGE.
   _____
  |_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
  | | Russell King rmk@arm.linux.org.uk --- ---
  | | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/~rmk/aboutme.html / / |
  | +-+-+ --- -+-
  / | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\
 / | | | --- |
    +-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ |

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:19 EST