| Subject | Re: [patch 05/19] split LRU lists into anon & file sets | From | Lee Schermerhorn <> | Date | Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:50:09 -0500 |
| |
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 15:24 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Hi Rik > > > +static inline int is_file_lru(enum lru_list l) > > +{ > > + BUILD_BUG_ON(LRU_INACTIVE_FILE != 2 || LRU_ACTIVE_FILE != 3); > > + return (l/2 == 1); > > +} > > below patch is a bit cleanup proposal. > i think LRU_FILE is more clarify than "/2". > > What do you think it? > > > > Index: linux-2.6.24-rc6-mm1-rvr/include/linux/mmzone.h > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.24-rc6-mm1-rvr.orig/include/linux/mmzone.h 2008-01-11 11:10:30.000000000 +0900 > +++ linux-2.6.24-rc6-mm1-rvr/include/linux/mmzone.h 2008-01-11 14:40:31.000000000 +0900 > @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ > static inline int is_file_lru(enum lru_list l) > { > BUILD_BUG_ON(LRU_INACTIVE_FILE != 2 || LRU_ACTIVE_FILE != 3); > - return (l/2 == 1); > + return !!(l & LRU_FILE); > } > > struct per_cpu_pages { >
Kosaki-san:
Again, my doing. I agree that the calculation is a bit strange, but I wanted to "future-proof" this function in case we ever get to a value of '6' for the lru_list enum. In that case, the AND will evaluate to non-zero for what may not be a file LRU. Between the build time assertion and the division [which could just be a 'l >> 1', I suppose] we should be safe.
Thanks, Lee
|