Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:58:25 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: lowmem_reserve (replaces protection) |
| |
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 09:48:25PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > This is a forward port to 2.6 CVS of the lowmem_reserve VM feature in > > the 2.4 kernel. > > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/patches/v2.6/2.6.9/lowmem_reserve-1 > > - unsigned long protection[MAX_NR_ZONES]; > + unsigned long lowmem_reserve[MAX_NR_ZONES]; > > The gratituous renaming of variable and function names makes > it hard to see what this patch actually changed. Hard enough > that I'm not sure what the behavioural difference is supposed > to be.
the behavioural difference is the API and the fact the feaure is now enabled with sane values (the previous code was disabled by default and it was unusable with that API). besides fixing the API the patch nukes dozens of useless lines of code and a buffer overflow. The sysctl definitely needs renaming or it'd break the ABI with userspace, it's far from a gratituous rename. since I was foroced to change the sysctl name accordingly with the new 2.4 API, I thought renaming the variable that is set by the sysctl was also required, otherwise the sysctl is called lowmem_reserve and the variable is still called protection. Clearly it's much cleaner if _both_ sysctl and variable are called lowmem_reserve.
I could have used protection2 to still use the "protection" name, but lowmem_reserve (btw, the same name I used first in 2.4, before protection ever existed in 2.6) looks nicer to me. - 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/
| |