Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:03:48 +0100 | From | Mel Gorman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 18/22] Use allocation flags as an index to the zone watermark |
| |
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:27:15AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18:14 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > Preference of taste really. When I started a conversion to accessors, it > > > changed something recognised to something new that looked uglier to me. > > > Only one place cares about the union enough to access is via an array so > > > why spread it everywhere. > > > > Personally, I'd say for consistency. Someone looking at both forms > > wouldn't necessarily know that they refer to the same variables unless > > they know about the union. > > for just clalification... > > AFAIK, C language specification don't gurantee point same value. > compiler can insert pad between struct-member and member, but not insert > into array. >
Considering that they are the same type for elements and arrays, I didn't think padding would ever be a problem.
> However, all gcc version don't do that. I think. but perhaps I missed > some minor gcc release.. > > So, I also like Dave's idea. but it only personal feeling. >
The tide is against me on this one :).
How about I roll a patch on top of this set that replaces the union by calling all sites? I figure that patch will go through a few revisions before people are happy with the final API. However, as the patch wouldn't change functionality, I'd like to see this series getting wider testing if possible. The replace-union-with-single-array patch can be easily folded in then when it settles.
Sound like a plan?
-- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
| |