Re: Why *not* rmap, anyway?

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>]

On Tuesday 07 May 2002 23:21, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> There are a couple of things I should probably say about my prior efforts.
> 
> The plan back then was to hide the pagetable structure from generic code
> altogether and allow architecture-specific code to export a procedural
> interface totally insulating the core from the structure of pagetables.
> This was largely motivated by the notion that the optimal pagetable
> structure could be chosen on a per-architecture basis. Linus himself
> informed me that there was evidence to the contrary regarding
> architecture-specific optimal pagetable structures, and so I abandoned
> that effort given the evidence the scheme was pessimal.
> 
> I have no plans now to change the standardized structure or to export
> a HAT from arch code. OTOH I've faced some recent reminders of what the
> code looks like now and believe janitoring may well be in order.

Swap_off is deeply disgusting and needs a rototilling.  Some others like
copy_page_range and remap_page_range are fine.  Zap_page_range has
superficial defects.  Other than swap_off, there are no really obviously
bleeding wounds.

-- 
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/