[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [Xen-devel] PG_arch_1
>From: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) [mailto:dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx] >Sent: 2005年12月9日 11:17 >> >In any case, PG_arch_1 is used for other purposes on ia64, ppc, >> >ppc64, sparc64, arm, mips, pa-risc, and even has semantics for >> >linux arch-neutral code (look for PG_Arch_1 in >> >linux/Documentation/cachetlb.txt... does Xen depend on this >> >behavior?), and the eventual goal is to merge upstream, >> >it might be best if Xen defines it as a new bit ("PG_foreign"? >> >no sense being vague by calling it PG_arch_2) rather than >> >overloads PG_arch_1? >> >> I prefer to the "vague" name here. By using PG_foreign, how >> can this bit be utilized by other places when running out of >> virtualization world? Since these bits are *jealously* >> guarded, name of the new bit should encourage more usages >> instead of special purpose. > >That's exactly the problem. If any Linux arch sees the bit >as generic and decides to use it for some other purpose, then >Xenlinux can't use it anymore. > >Dan Ah, you're right. So how to balance? If suggesting to add a new flag which can only be exclusively used by one case, that's likely to see resistance. However if introducing a generic flag, same issue upon PG_arch_1 will happen as you said. ;-( Thanks, Kevin _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |