[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <519CDCBB.7050807@sr71.net>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 07:56:59 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 29/39] thp: move maybe_pmd_mkwrite() out of mk_huge_pmd()
On 05/22/2013 07:37 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 05/11/2013 06:23 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> It's confusing that mk_huge_pmd() has sematics different from mk_pte()
>>> or mk_pmd().
>>>
>>> Let's move maybe_pmd_mkwrite() out of mk_huge_pmd() and adjust
>>> prototype to match mk_pte().
>>
>> Was there a motivation to do this beyond adding consistency? Do you use
>> this later or something?
>
> I spent some time on debugging problem caused by this inconsistency, so at
> that point I was motivated to fix it. :)
A little anecdote that this bit you in practice to help indicate this
isn't just random code churn would be nice.
--
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