[PATCH] mm: tlb_is_full_mm was obscure

tlb_is_full_mm?  What does that mean?  The TLB is full?  No, it means that the
mm's last user has gone and the whole mm is being torn down.  And it's an
inline function because sparc64 uses a different (slightly better)
"tlb_frozen" name for the flag others call "fullmm".

And now the ptep_get_and_clear_full macro used in zap_pte_range refers
directly to tlb->fullmm, which would be wrong for sparc64.  Rather than
correct that, I'd prefer to scrap tlb_is_full_mm altogether, and change
sparc64 to just use the same poor name as everyone else - is that okay?

Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/arch/sparc64/mm/tlb.c b/arch/sparc64/mm/tlb.c
index 90ca99d0b89c..6a43f7cd090e 100644
--- a/arch/sparc64/mm/tlb.c
+++ b/arch/sparc64/mm/tlb.c
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ void tlb_batch_add(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t
 
 no_cache_flush:
 
-        if (mp->tlb_frozen)
+        if (mp->fullmm)
                 return;
 
         nr = mp->tlb_nr;
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ void flush_tlb_pgtables(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start, unsigned long
         unsigned long nr = mp->tlb_nr;
         long s = start, e = end, vpte_base;
 
-        if (mp->tlb_frozen)
+        if (mp->fullmm)
                 return;
 
         /* If start is greater than end, that is a real problem.  */