[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5120893D.6090705@freescale.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:39:41 +0800
From: Huang Shijie <b32955@...escale.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: introduce __linear_page_index()
于 2013年02月06日 05:27, Andrew Morton 写道:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 15:03:39 +0800
> Huang Shijie<b32955@...escale.com> wrote:
>
>> +static inline pgoff_t __linear_page_index(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> unsigned long address)
>> {
>> pgoff_t pgoff;
>> +
>> + pgoff = (address - vma->vm_start)>> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> + return pgoff + vma->vm_pgoff;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline pgoff_t linear_page_index(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> + unsigned long address)
>> +{
>> if (unlikely(is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)))
>> return linear_hugepage_index(vma, address);
>> - pgoff = (address - vma->vm_start)>> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> - pgoff += vma->vm_pgoff;
>> - return pgoff>> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT);
>> + return __linear_page_index(vma, address)>>
>> + (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT);
>> }
> I don't think we need bother creating both linear_page_index() and
> __linear_page_index(). Realistically, we won't be supporting
Just as Hocko said, the unmap_ref_private() (in hugetlb.c) may also uses
the __linear_page_index().
So it's better to the two helpers : linear_page_index() and
__linear_page_index().
do you agree?
thanks
Huang Shijie
--
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