On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:08:40 -0600 "Tom 'spot' Callaway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 01:13 -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 15:32 -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > >>> I disagree with Tom's patch in that it puts this huge switch() > >>> statement inline. The whole point of BTFIXUP_HIGH() is that it > >>> resolves the call to a single instruction which can be easily > >>> patched at runtime. > >>> If it's going to expand to multiple BTFIXUP_HIGH() calls and a > >>> switch statement, just make it a normal BTFIXUP() to a function > >>> and place the implementation in sun4c.c and sun4m.c > > > >On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:22:24PM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > >> How about this instead? > >> Signed-off-by: Tom 'spot' Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >I'll make sure this gets into 2.6.11-final. > > The second pte_read patch did not really make it into 2.6.11 final (but > my original patch, which DaveM pointed out as faulty, did). I've made a > new patch which reverts the huge switch inline statement logic, and uses > the normal BTFIXUP instead. > > With this patch applied, we should have the preferred pte_read mechanism > in place for sparc32. > > Signed-off-by: Tom 'spot' Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Looks great, patch applied. Thanks Tom. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
