Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:43:55 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |