"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:13:52 -0700 > > > http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/sparsemem/ > > The only thing that sticks out to me in this patch is that > sparc64 uses a field starting at bit 24 in page->flags to > determine the cpu which needs a D-cache flush for a page.
<looks> That's a bit hacky. Doesn't it conflict with the way in which we stuff the page's zone index into the top of page->flags? I guess with a small number of zones and a smallish number of CPUs you got lucky. It'd be safer to use bit 32. > I don't think the page->flags rework makes things any different > than before, but it's something to keep in mind. Think so.
