lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-11 17:19    [W:0.020 / U:0.280 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site