lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: pud_bad vs pud_bad

* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

> I'm looking at unifying the 32 and 64-bit versions of pud_bad.
>
> 32-bits defines it as:
>
> static inline int pud_bad(pud_t pud)
> {
> return (pud_val(pud) & ~(PTE_PFN_MASK | _KERNPG_TABLE | _PAGE_USER)) != 0;
> }
>
> and 64 as:
>
> static inline int pud_bad(pud_t pud)
> {
> return (pud_val(pud) & ~(PTE_PFN_MASK | _PAGE_USER)) != _KERNPG_TABLE;
> }
>
>
> I'm inclined to go with the 64-bit version, but I'm wondering if there's
> something subtle I'm missing here.

Why go with the 64-bit version? The 32-bit check looks more compact and
should result in smaller code.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-05 19:47    [W:0.802 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site