On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 August 2005 10:15, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > Why don't you pass the vma in zap_details?
> >
> > Possibly. I initially did it that way, but it ended up fattening
> > paths that don't use details.
>
> It should not, it only affects, hmm, less than 10 places, each at the
> beginning of a massive call chain, e.g., in madvise_dontneed:
>
> - zap_page_range(vma, start, end - start, NULL);
> + zap_page_range(start, end - start, &(struct zap){ .vma = vma });
>
> > And this way is less intrusive.
>
> Nearly the same I think, and makes forward progress in controlling this
> middle-aged belly roll of an internal API.
I much prefer how Nick has it, with vma passed separately as a regular
argument. details is for packaging up some details only required in
unlikely circumstances, normally it's NULL and not filled in at all.
You can argue that (vma->vm_flags & VM_RESERVED) is precisely that
kind of detail. But personally I find it rather odd that vma isn't
an explicit argument to zap_pte_range already - I find it very useful
when trying to shed light on the rmap.c:BUG, for example.
There might be a case for packaging repeated arguments into structures
(though several of these levels are inlined anyway), but that's some
other exercise entirely, shouldn't get in the way of removing Reserved.
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |