[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sku1j56f.fsf@saeurebad.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:43:04 +0200
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: rename PTE_MASK to PTE_PFN_MASK
Hi,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
> * Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> wrote:
>
>> Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> writes:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> writes:
>> >
>> >> Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> >>> PTE_PFN_MASK is not symmetric to PAGE_MASK.
>> >>
>> >> No, it isn't. Is there anything about the name that suggests that it
>> >> should be? PTE_PFN_MASK is for operating on pteval_t-typed values
>> >> extracted from ptes; PAGE_MASK is for operating on addresses.
>> >
>> > I meant the naming scheme, not the functionality.
>> >
>> > The thing PAGE_MASK and PTE_MASK have in common is that they are masks
>> > and their names indicate what is masked away when applied.
>> >
>> > So PAGE_MASK suggests that it masks out page details. And PTE_MASK
>> > suggests that it masks out PTE details.
>> >
>> > PTE_PFN_MASK masks suggests that it masks out the flags, according
>> > to the existing naming convention. But it does the opposite.
>>
>> As you explained me how PAGE_MASK was meant, scratch the above ;)
>
> btw., feel free to send a patch that adds more comments that makes it
> obvious at first sight if someone takes a look at the defines.
I will do that!
Hannes
--
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