Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:31:15 +0000 (GMT) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.5-rc2-aa1 |
| |
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:07:54AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > Most people seem to be talking about "pte based rmap" vs > > "object based rmap". So far you're the only one who I've > > seen using "rmap" to mean just "pte based rmap" and not > > also "object based rmap". > > then I'm the only one and I could have been biased because rmap.c is > including 99% of code for the pte based rmap, and my objrmap.c is including > 99% of code for the objrect based _reverse_mappings_, still objrmap.c is > a more appropriate name for that stuff IMO (especially if somebody else > is mistaken as I am using the word rmap to mean the current 2.6 code in > mm/rmap.c).
I agree with Rik and Christoph (I agreed with all of Christoph's points, but most can be left until later on): mm/rmap.c and include/linux/rmap.h (the latter a name change from include/linux/rmap-locking.h).
objrmap is the particular implementation found within that file in your tree, but Rik imagined right from the start that there would be various implementations:
* This is kept modular because we may want to experiment * with object-based reverse mapping schemes.
(Aaargh, now we can expect someone to propose CONFIG_PTE_CHAIN_RMAP, CONFIG_ANON_VMA_RMAP, CONFIG_ANONMM_RMAP etc)
Hugh
- 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/
| |