Message ID | 20170803131721.74011-1-zi.yan@sent.com |
---|---|
State | Accepted |
Delegated to: | David Miller |
Headers | show |
Ping. Just wonder what is the status of this patch. This patch is trivial and I successfully compiled it for sparc32. swp_entry_to_pmd() will be the only user of __pmd() in sparc32, returning __pmd(0). Having __pmd() can help replace following code in include/linux/swapops.h (in linux-next: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/include/linux/swapops.h#n224): static inline pmd_t swp_entry_to_pmd(swp_entry_t entry) { pmd_t e; memset(&e, 0, sizeof(pmd_t)); return e; } with: static inline pmd_t swp_entry_to_pmd(swp_entry_t entry) { return __pmd(0); } It makes the code more portable. Thanks. -- Best Regards Yan Zi On 3 Aug 2017, at 9:17, Zi Yan wrote: > From: Zi Yan <zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu> > > THP migration is added but only supports x86_64 at the moment. For all > other architectures, swp_entry_to_pmd() only returns a zero pmd_t. > > Due to a GCC zero initializer bug #53119, the standard (pmd_t){0} > initializer is not accepted by all GCC versions. __pmd() is a feasible > workaround. In addition, sparc32's pmd_t is an array instead of a single > value, so we need (pmd_t){ {0}, } instead of (pmd_t){0}. Thus, > a different __pmd() definition is needed in sparc32. > > Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu> > --- > arch/sparc/include/asm/page_32.h | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/page_32.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/page_32.h > index 0efd0583a8c9..6249214148c2 100644 > --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/page_32.h > +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/page_32.h > @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ typedef struct { unsigned long iopgprot; } iopgprot_t; > #define iopgprot_val(x) ((x).iopgprot) > > #define __pte(x) ((pte_t) { (x) } ) > +#define __pmd(x) ((pmd_t) { { (x) }, }) > #define __iopte(x) ((iopte_t) { (x) } ) > #define __pgd(x) ((pgd_t) { (x) } ) > #define __ctxd(x) ((ctxd_t) { (x) } ) > @@ -95,6 +96,7 @@ typedef unsigned long iopgprot_t; > #define iopgprot_val(x) (x) > > #define __pte(x) (x) > +#define __pmd(x) ((pmd_t) { { (x) }, }) > #define __iopte(x) (x) > #define __pgd(x) (x) > #define __ctxd(x) (x) > -- > 2.13.2
From: "Zi Yan" <zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:46:08 -0400 > Ping. Just wonder what is the status of this patch. You never need to ask this question. Your patch is queued up in SPARC patchwork: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/797215/ And is in "Under Review" state. There is nothing for you to do but simply be patient. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Thanks for you reply. Sorry. I did not know there is a patchwork to track the state. -- Best Regards Yan Zi On 10 Aug 2017, at 12:28, David Miller wrote: > From: "Zi Yan" <zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu> > Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:46:08 -0400 > >> Ping. Just wonder what is the status of this patch. > > You never need to ask this question. > > Your patch is queued up in SPARC patchwork: > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.ozlabs.org%2Fpatch%2F797215%2F&data=02%7C01%7Czi.yan%40cs.rutgers.edu%7Cb6b46ebffe834baa4a6b08d4e00ce693%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636379793396189447&sdata=djcs5GYNIQsRLfg5F6rEyd3t%2Bsak9sDDIhg23sj3ZlA%3D&reserved=0 > > And is in "Under Review" state. > > There is nothing for you to do but simply be patient.
From: Zi Yan <zi.yan@sent.com> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 09:17:21 -0400 > From: Zi Yan <zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu> > > THP migration is added but only supports x86_64 at the moment. For all > other architectures, swp_entry_to_pmd() only returns a zero pmd_t. > > Due to a GCC zero initializer bug #53119, the standard (pmd_t){0} > initializer is not accepted by all GCC versions. __pmd() is a feasible > workaround. In addition, sparc32's pmd_t is an array instead of a single > value, so we need (pmd_t){ {0}, } instead of (pmd_t){0}. Thus, > a different __pmd() definition is needed in sparc32. > > Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu> Applied. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/page_32.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/page_32.h index 0efd0583a8c9..6249214148c2 100644 --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/page_32.h +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/page_32.h @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ typedef struct { unsigned long iopgprot; } iopgprot_t; #define iopgprot_val(x) ((x).iopgprot) #define __pte(x) ((pte_t) { (x) } ) +#define __pmd(x) ((pmd_t) { { (x) }, }) #define __iopte(x) ((iopte_t) { (x) } ) #define __pgd(x) ((pgd_t) { (x) } ) #define __ctxd(x) ((ctxd_t) { (x) } ) @@ -95,6 +96,7 @@ typedef unsigned long iopgprot_t; #define iopgprot_val(x) (x) #define __pte(x) (x) +#define __pmd(x) ((pmd_t) { { (x) }, }) #define __iopte(x) (x) #define __pgd(x) (x) #define __ctxd(x) (x)