x86: rename PTE_MASK to PTE_PFN_MASK
Rusty, in his peevish way, complained that macros defining constants should have a name which somewhat accurately reflects the actual purpose of the constant. Aside from the fact that PTE_MASK gives no clue as to what's actually being masked, and is misleadingly similar to the functionally entirely different PMD_MASK, PUD_MASK and PGD_MASK, I don't really see what the problem is. But if this patch silences the incessent noise, then it will have achieved its goal (TODO: write test-case). Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
committed by
Ingo Molnar
parent
c2e3277f87
commit
59438c9fc4
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
|
||||
_PAGE_DIRTY)
|
||||
|
||||
/* Set of bits not changed in pte_modify */
|
||||
#define _PAGE_CHG_MASK (PTE_MASK | _PAGE_PCD | _PAGE_PWT | \
|
||||
#define _PAGE_CHG_MASK (PTE_PFN_MASK | _PAGE_PCD | _PAGE_PWT | \
|
||||
_PAGE_ACCESSED | _PAGE_DIRTY)
|
||||
|
||||
#define _PAGE_CACHE_MASK (_PAGE_PCD | _PAGE_PWT)
|
||||
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ static inline pgprot_t pgprot_modify(pgprot_t oldprot, pgprot_t newprot)
|
||||
return __pgprot(preservebits | addbits);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
#define pte_pgprot(x) __pgprot(pte_flags(x) & ~PTE_MASK)
|
||||
#define pte_pgprot(x) __pgprot(pte_flags(x) & ~PTE_PFN_MASK)
|
||||
|
||||
#define canon_pgprot(p) __pgprot(pgprot_val(p) & __supported_pte_mask)
|
||||
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user