[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609081019040.7094@skynet.skynet.ie>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 10:20:16 +0100 (IST)
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] Split the free lists into kernel and user parts
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi Mel,
>
> Looking good, some small nits follow.
>
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 20:04 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
>> +#define for_each_rclmtype_order(type, order) \
>> + for (order = 0; order < MAX_ORDER; order++) \
>> + for (type = 0; type < RCLM_TYPES; type++)
>
> It seems odd to me that you have the for loops in reverse order of the
> arguments.
>
I'll fix that.
>> +static inline int get_pageblock_type(struct page *page)
>> +{
>> + return (PageEasyRclm(page) != 0);
>> +}
>
> I find the naming a little odd, I would have suspected something like:
> get_page_blocktype() or thereabout since you're getting a page
> attribute.
>
This is a throwback from an early version when I used a bitmap that used
one bit per MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES block of pages. Many pages in a block
shared one bit - hence get_pageblock_type(). The name is now stupid. I'll
fix it.
>> +static inline int gfpflags_to_rclmtype(unsigned long gfp_flags)
>> +{
>> + return ((gfp_flags & __GFP_EASYRCLM) != 0);
>> +}
>
> gfp_t argument?
>
doh, yes, it should be gfp_t
Thanks
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists