Re: [PATCH 14(16] pramfs: memory protection

[Andi Kleen]

> per-arch?! Wow. Mmm...maybe I have to change something at fs level to
> avoid that. An alternative could be to use the follow_pte solution but
> avoid the protection via Kconfig if the fs is used on some archs (ia64
> or MIPS), with large pages and so on. An help of the kernel community
> to know all these particular cases is welcome.

It depends if the protection is a fundamental part of your design
(but if it is I would argue that's broken because it's really not very good
protection): If it's just an optional nice to have you can stub
it out on architectures that don't support it.

-Andi
-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/