RE: [Xen-devel] PG_arch_1

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) [mailto:dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx]
>Sent: 2005年12月8日 22:33
>> On 7 Dec 2005, at 03:11, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> >> Any thought on this apparent conflict?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Dan
>> >
>> > Add a new PG_arch_2, since there're two level architectures within
>> > xenlinux world?
>>
>> Yes, I think this is the right answer. There are loads of spare bits
>> available to stealing one should be no problem.
>>
>>   -- Keir
>
>True, but I've heard tell that these bits are jealously guarded.
>
>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?
>
>Dan

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.

Thanks,
Kevin

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel