[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46009CEA.1050206@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:48:10 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hch@...radead.org,
arjan@...radead.org, zippel@...ux-m68k.org, dmlb2000@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gdb@...rceware.org
Subject: Re: PAGE_SIZE Availability Inconsistency
Anton Blanchard wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> The advantage would be that it wouldn't require a v3 for platforms for
>> which MIN_PAGE_SIZE == PAGE_SIZE, which accounts for a very large
>> percentage of systems.
>>
>> You still have to look for the darn magic in two places, so there is no
>> reason for it to be different.
>
> The problem is if you can hit in two places then what PAGE_SIZE should
> you use to size the contents of the swap header while remaining backward
> compatible.
>
> Im leaning towards Dave suggestion of creating a clean v3 swap header.
>
Changing the header format doesn't make *ANY* difference whatsoever.
You have to write two copies of the swap header, and the kernel should
check for a header at MIN_PAGE_SIZE first and then at PAGE_SIZE.
If there are fields (other than position) in the v2 swap header that are
dependent on PAGE_SIZE, then the copy at MIN_PAGE_SIZE should be sized
using MIN_PAGE_SIZE, and the copy at PAGE_SIZE should be sized at
PAGE_SIZE. It's that simple.
Creating a new format will not help that one iota, and will create
gratuitous incompatiblity for the very common case of PAGE_SIZE ==
MIN_PAGE_SIZE.
-hpa
-hpa
-
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