Re: PTE access rules & abstraction

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 05:10 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> We are getting better slowly I think (eg. you note that set_pte_at is
> no longer used as a generic "do anything"), but I won't dispute that
> this whole area could use an overhaul; a document for all the rules,
> a single person or point of responsibility for those rules...

Can we nowadays -rely- on set_pte_at() never being called to overwrite
an already valid PTE ? I mean, it looks like the generic code doesn't do
it anymore but I wonder if it's reasonable to forbid that from coming
back ? That would allow me to remove some hacks in ppc64 and simplify
some upcoming ppc32 code.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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/