Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/05] mm rationalize __alloc_pages ALLOC_* flag names | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:59:57 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 01:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > Paul Jackson wrote: > > > Rationalize mm/page_alloc.c:__alloc_pages() ALLOC flag names. > > > > > > > I don't really see the need for this. The names aren't > > clearly better, and the downside is that they move away > > from the terminlogy we've been using in the page allocator > > for the past few years. > > I thought they were heaps better, actually. > > -#define ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS 0x01 /* don't check watermarks at all */ > -#define ALLOC_HARDER 0x02 /* try to alloc harder */ > -#define ALLOC_HIGH 0x04 /* __GFP_HIGH set */ > +#define ALLOC_DONT_DIP 0x01 /* don't dip into memory reserves */ > +#define ALLOC_DIP_SOME 0x02 /* dip into reserves some */ > +#define ALLOC_DIP_ALOT 0x04 /* dip into reserves further */ > +#define ALLOC_MUSTHAVE 0x08 /* ignore all constraints */ > > very explicit.
maybe. however... if names get changed anyway, maybe name them based on intent?
ALLOC_NORMAL ALLOC_KERNELTHREAD ALLOC_VMCAUSED ALLOC_WOULDDEADLOCK
or something.. yes these are lame
perhaps both are needed.. bitflags for the implementation, and defines based on usage that are compounded bitflags..
- 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/
| |