[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080930092001.69849210@bike.lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:20:01 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
David Wilder <dwilder@...ibm.com>, hch@....de,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 Golden] Unified trace buffer
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:00:11 -0400 (EDT)
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> Ah, I believe the disk IO uses the page frame. That might be a bit more
> difficult to pass the data to disk and still keep information on the
> page frame.
Perhaps I'm speaking out of turn, but I have to wonder: am I the only one
who gets uncomfortable looking at these hacks to overload struct page? It
seems fragile as all hell; woe to he who tries to make a change to struct
page someday and has to track all of this stuff down.
Are the savings gained by using struct page this way really worth the
added complexity?
jon
--
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