Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] x86: use PTE_MASK consistently

From: Hugh Dickins
Date: Tue May 20 2008 - 08:59:59 EST

On Tue, 20 May 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Here's a series to rationalize the use of PTE_MASK and remove some
> amount of ad-hocery.
> This gist of the series is:
> 1. Fix the definition of PTE_MASK so that its equally applicable in
> all pagetable modes
> 2. Use it consistently
> I haven't tried to address the *_bad() stuff, other than to convert
> pmd_bad_* to use PTE_MASK.
> This series has had some testing in the x86.git tree, and hasn't shown
> any problems. Each patch is more or less absolutely trivial and the
> series is very bisectable, to help track down any problems which might
> arise (this area has always been a source of subtle problems).

Yes, thanks Jeremy: I've checked that each stage builds and runs X on my
boxes here, x86_32 and x86_32+PAE and x86_64. (So even 1/8 is enough to
fix the PAT pte_modify issue, though 2/8 then fixes compiler warnings.)

I'll leave it to you and Linus whether your way of defining PTE_MASK is
satisfactory as is, or needs to be improved to his way. I've not tried
his suggestion of doing the _PAGE_BIT definitions: certainly it's
seemed odd to me that they were defined with L, but I've little
appetite to mess around with them now myself.

One thing I did do a few days ago, but not got around to posting,
was the *_bad() stuff. I've retested and will post that now...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at