Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:06:20 -0500 (EST) | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] swap 13/13 may_enter_fs? |
| |
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote: > > > > shrink_list's may_enter_fs (may_write_page would be a better name) > > currently reflects that swapcache page I/O won't suffer from FS > > complications, so can be done if __GFP_IO without __GFP_FS; but > > the same is true of a tmpfs page (which is just this stage away > > from being a swapcache page), so check bdi->memory_backed instead. > > > > ... > > > > + if (!(gfp_mask & (bdi->memory_backed? > > + __GFP_IO: __GFP_FS))) > > goto keep_locked; > > Barf. I haven't used a question mark operator in ten years, and this is a > fine demonstration of why ;) > > I think a feasibly comprehensible transformation would be: > > /* > * A comment goes here > */ > if (bdi->memory_backed) > may_enter_fs = gfp_mask & __GFP_IO; > else > may_enter_fs = gfp_mask & __GFP_FS;
Unless there's a subtle difference in functionality here that I'm missing, you are doing the same thing in a larger and slower way, and the logic is less clear.
Is there some benefit I'm missing?
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
- 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/
| |