Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:54:49 -0800 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: pud_bad vs pud_bad |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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. >
Well, its stricter. But I don't really understand what condition its actually testing for.
J
| |