Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] page table iterators | From | Nick Piggin <> | Date | Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:59:37 +1100 |
| |
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 05:12 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > OK after sleeping on it, I'm warming to your way. > > > > I don't think it makes something like David's modifications any > > easier, but mine didn't go a long way to that end either. And > > being a more incremental approach gives us more room to move in > > future (for example, maybe toward something that really *will* > > accommodate the bitmap walking code nicely). > > I'll take a quick look at David's today. > Just so long as we don't make them harder. >
No, I think we may want to move to something better abstracted: it makes things sufficiently complex that you wouldn't want to have it open coded everywhere.
But no, you're not making it harder than the present situation.
> > So I'd be pretty happy for you to queue this up with Andrew for > > 2.6.12. Anyone else? > > Oh, okay, thanks. You weren't very happy with p??_limit(addr, end), > and good naming is important to me. I didn't care for your tentative > p??_span or p??_span_end. Would p??_end be better? p??_enda would > be fun for one of them... >
pud_addr_end?
http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile
- Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile.
- 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/
| |