Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 May 2008 02:43:25 +0200 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [patch] SLQB v2 |
| |
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:29:13PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 1 May 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > A small question for SLUB devs, would you accept a patch that does > > > a similar thing by creating 'slub_page' instead of stuffing slub > > > elements (freelist, inuse, ..) in 'mm_types::struct page' unions ? > > > > I'd like to see that. I have a patch for SLUB, actually. > > We could do that but then how do we make sure that both definitions stay > in sync?
>So far I have thought that it is clearer if we have one def > that shows how objects are overloaded. > > There is also the overloading of page flags that is now done separately > in SLUB. I wonder if that needs to be moved into page-flags.h? Would > clarify how page flags are overloaded. > > If someone inspects the contents of a page struct via debug then it would > help if all the possible uses are in one place. If the stuff in tucked > away in mm/sl?b.c then its difficult to find.
If you are not debugging sl?b.c code/pages, then why would you want to see what those fields are?
| |