lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: add page argument to copy/clear_user_page

On Mon, 21 May 2001, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> As for the `to' argument, yes it is redundant since it is just kmap(page).

And why not let "clear_page()" just do that itself?

The only place that doesn't already do "kmap(page)" is basically
get_zeroed_page(), and the only reason it doesn't do that is because the
whole function is fundamentally not able to handle high memory pages (it
returns a fixed address, not the "struct page *".

But that function is also likely to not care about the extra five cycles
or so of having to do the kmap() by making clear_page() (and copy_page())
always use "struct page *" and do kmap() internally. Because most people
who care about performance are already using other functions (in fact, the
functions that _can_ allocate high memory).

And I hate redundancy, and having different functions for the same thing.

> But copy/clear_user_page isn't the interface that gets called from the
> MM stuff, copy/clear_user_highpage is, defined in include/linux/highmem.h.
> These are two of a whole series of functions which all do kmap, do
> something, kunmap.

The thing is, copy/clear_page shouldn't exist at all (or rather, the
"highpage" versions should be renamed to the non-highpage names, because
the non-highmem case simply isn't interesting any more).

The highmem special casing used to make sense back when highmem was a rare
special case. These days, we should just get rid of the distinction as
much as possible,

Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans