[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <514767A5.4020601@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:14:45 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC: Lin Feng <linfeng@...fujitsu.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, penberg@...nel.org,
jacob.shin@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mm: accurate the comments for STEP_SIZE_SHIFT macro
On 03/18/2013 12:13 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> No, it doesn't. This is C, not elementary school Now I'm really bothered.
>>
>> The comment doesn't say *why* (PUD_SHIFT-PMD_SHIFT)/2 or any other
>> variant is correct, furthermore I suspect that the +1 is misplaced.
>> However, what is really needed is:
>>
>> 1. Someone needs to explain what the logic should be and why, and
>> 2. replace the macro with a symbolic macro, not with a constant and a
>> comment explaining, incorrectly, how that value was derived.
>
> yes, we should find out free_mem_size instead to decide next step size.
>
> But that will come out page table size estimation problem again.
>
Sorry, that comment is double nonsense for someone who isn't intimately
familiar with the code, and it sounds like it is just plain wrong.
Instead, try to explain why 5 is the correct value in the current code
and how it is (or should be!) derived.
-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