From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3tMkW31nV9zDvJb for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:55:43 +1100 (AEDT) From: Michael Ellerman To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] powerpc/mm: Rename hugetlb-radix.h to hugetlb.h In-Reply-To: <87mvgwn89b.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20161114151128.2146-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161114151128.2146-2-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <874m350xyg.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <87mvgwn89b.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:55:42 +1100 Message-ID: <87mvgtw40x.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes: > Michael Ellerman writes: >> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes: >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hugetlb-radix.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hugetlb.h >>> similarity index 78% >>> rename from arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hugetlb-radix.h >>> rename to arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hugetlb.h >>> index c45189aa7476..d9c283f95e05 100644 >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hugetlb-radix.h >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hugetlb.h >>> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ >>> -#ifndef _ASM_POWERPC_BOOK3S_64_HUGETLB_RADIX_H >>> -#define _ASM_POWERPC_BOOK3S_64_HUGETLB_RADIX_H >>> +#ifndef _ASM_POWERPC_BOOK3S_64_HUGETLB_H >>> +#define _ASM_POWERPC_BOOK3S_64_HUGETLB_H >>> /* >>> * For radix we want generic code to handle hugetlb. But then if we want >>> * both hash and radix to be enabled together we need to workaround the >>> @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ static inline int hstate_get_psize(struct hstate *hstate) >>> return MMU_PAGE_2M; >>> else if (shift == mmu_psize_defs[MMU_PAGE_1G].shift) >>> return MMU_PAGE_1G; >>> + else if (shift == mmu_psize_defs[MMU_PAGE_16M].shift) >>> + return MMU_PAGE_16M; >>> + else if (shift == mmu_psize_defs[MMU_PAGE_16G].shift) >>> + return MMU_PAGE_16G; >> >> That's not just a rename? > > In a way it is, because now it need to handle the new hugepage shift > supported by hash. But it's not used by the hash code (yet) is it? > I can split that to two patch if that makes explains it better. I think that would make it clearer yeah. Do the rename, and then any adaptations. Or vice versa. cheers