Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:55:40 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: rename PTE_MASK to PTE_PFN_MASK |
| |
* Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 July 2008 18:36:26 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote: > > > Rusty, in his peevish way, complained that macros defining constants > > > should have a name which somewhat accurately reflects the actual > > > purpose of the constant. > > > > Applied to tip/x86/cleanups anyway. Rusty will find out himself how bad > > this whole concept of clean and understandable code is, soon enough! > > I am disgusted with this inappropriate emphasis on clarity over > obscurity. It should be pretty clear to everyone here that we can't > have both! > > Fortunately, there is a way to partially rectify the situation. Ingo, > please apply.
> +/* There's something suspicious about this line: see PTE_PFN_MASK comment. */ > #define __PHYSICAL_MASK ((phys_addr_t)(1ULL << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT) - 1)
> /* PTE_PFN_MASK extracts the PFN from a (pte|pmd|pud|pgd)val_t */ > +/* This line is quite subtle. See __PHYSICAL_MASK comment above. */ > #define PTE_PFN_MASK ((pteval_t)PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK)
Now that you and Jeremy have thoroughly destroyed this file's obscurity with your disgusting cleanups and clarifications, i fear it's beyond repair. No matter how much i'd love to apply this infinitely recursive piece of documentation (what a genius it takes to even think of it!) i regret that i cannot. So sad.
Ingo
| |