On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 08:55:56PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 1:30 PM > > To: KY Srinivasan > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; Hank Janssen > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3]: Staging: hv: Use native page allocation/free > > functions > > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:59:00AM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > > > --- a/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c > > > @@ -230,7 +230,12 @@ int hv_init(void) > > > * Allocate the hypercall page memory > > > * virtaddr = osd_page_alloc(1); > > > */ > > > - virtaddr = osd_virtual_alloc_exec(PAGE_SIZE); > > > +#ifdef __x86_64__ > > > + virtaddr = __vmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL, PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC); > > #else > > > + virtaddr = __vmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL, > > > + __pgprot(__PAGE_KERNEL & (~_PAGE_NX))); #endif > > > > I'm not saying this patch is wrong at all, but I still don't understand why > > this is > > different depending on the architecture of the machine. Why is this > > necessary, it > > should be ok to do the same type of allocation no matter what the processor > > is, > > right? > > You are right Greg; I don't think there is a need to specify different page > protection bits based on the architecture - PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC should be enough.
I thought so, but for some reason Hank said there this was needed. Hank, is it still true? > However, this is the code that is currently in the tree - refer to osd.c. Oh, I remember, it's not a critique of this patch, it just reminded me of this question I always had for this code. > If it is ok with you, I could submit an additional patch to clean this up. If Hank says it is ok, and you all test it to verify nothing breaks, please send it on. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
