Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:15:37 -0500 | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [patch 05/19] split LRU lists into anon & file sets |
| |
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:59:18 -0500 Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 10:42 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:24:34 +0900 > > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > below patch is a bit cleanup proposal. > > > i think LRU_FILE is more clarify than "/2". > > > > > > What do you think it? > > > > Thank you for the cleanup, your version looks a lot nicer. > > I have applied your patch to my series. > > > > Rik: > > I think we also want to do something like: > > - BUILD_BUG_ON(LRU_INACTIVE_FILE != 2 || LRU_ACTIVE_FILE != 3); > + BUILD_BUG_ON(LRU_INACTIVE_FILE != 2 || LRU_ACTIVE_FILE != 3 || > + NR_LRU_LISTS > 6); > > Then we'll be warned if future change might break our implicit > assumption that any lru_list value with '0x2' set is a file lru.
Restoring the code to your original version makes things work again.
OTOH, I almost wonder if we should not simply define it to
return (l == LRU_INACTIVE_FILE || l == LRU_ACTIVE_FILE)
and just deal with it.
Your version of the code is correct and probably faster, but not as easy to read and probably not in a hot path :)
-- All rights reversed.
| |