On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:35:36PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkclean(pte_t pte) { set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_DIRTY)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkold(pte_t pte) { set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_ACCESSED)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_wrprotect(pte_t pte) { set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_RW)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkexec(pte_t pte) { set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_NX)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkdirty(pte_t pte) { set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) | _PAGE_DIRTY)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkyoung(pte_t pte) { set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) | _PAGE_ACCESSED)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkwrite(pte_t pte) { set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) | _PAGE_RW)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkhuge(pte_t pte) { set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) | _PAGE_PSE)); return pte; }
> +static inline pte_t pte_clrhuge(pte_t pte) { set_pte(&pte, __pte(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_PSE)); return pte; }
Is set_pte() really supposed to be used here? pte_val() and __pte()
are already hooked by paravirt_ops if needed, and it looks like we
don't want to call paravirt_ops set_pte() here.
I don't know if I understood fully the semantics of set_pte(), but
it seems that the paravirt_ops implementations expect set_pte() to be
called for PTEs that are actually inside existing pagetables (and not
for short-lived stack variables, like on this case).
Was this tested under Xen and/or VMI?
--
Eduardo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
