Mel wrote:
> > If you have good reason to keep __GFP_USER meanin either user or buffer,
> > then perhaps the name __GFP_USER is misleading.
> >
>
> Possibly but we are stuck for terminology here. It's hard to think of a
> good term that reflects the intention.
You make several good points. How about:
* Rename __GFP_USER to __GFP_EASYRCLM
* Shift the two __GFP_*RCLM flags up to 0x80000u and 0x100000u
* Leave __GFP_BITS_SHIFT at the 21 in your patch (and fix its comment)
(or should we go up the next nibble, to 24?).
This results in the two key GFP defines being:
#define __GFP_EASYRCLM 0x80000u /* Easily reclaimed user or buffer page */
#define __GFP_KERNRCLM 0x100000u /* Reclaimable kernel page */
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
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]
| |
 |