Re: Extend clear_page by an order parameter

From: Paul Mackerras (paulus_at_samba.org)
Date: 01/22/05

  • Next message: Seth, Rohit: "RE: possible CPU bug and request for Intel contacts" 
    Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:53:27 +1100
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>

    Christoph Lameter writes:

    > I had the name "zero_page" in V1 and V2 of the patch where it was
    > separate. Then someone complained about code duplication.

    Well, if you duplicated each arch's clear_page implementation in
    zero_page, then yes, that would be unnecessary code duplication. I
    would suggest that for architectures where the clear_page
    implementation can easily be extended, rename it to clear_page_order
    (or something) and #define clear_page(x) to be clear_page_order(x, 0).
    For architectures where it can't, leave clear_page as clear_page and
    define clear_page_order as an inline function that calls clear_page in
    a loop.

    > clear_page is called clear_page because it clears one page of *any* order
    > not just higher orders. zero-order pages are not segregated nor are they
    > intrisincally better just because they contain more memory ;-).

    You have missed my point, which was about address constraints, not a
    distinction between zero-order pages and higher-order pages.

    Anyway, I remain of the opinion that your naming is inconsistent with
    the naming of other functions that deal with zero-order and
    higher-order pages, such as get_free_pages, alloc_pages, free_pages,
    etc., and that your patch is unnecessarily intrusive. I guess it's up
    to Andrew to decide which way we go.

    Paul.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Seth, Rohit: "RE: possible CPU bug and request for Intel contacts"

    Relevant Pages