Andrew Morton wrote:
Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
Rationalize mm/page_alloc.c:__alloc_pages() ALLOC flag names.
I don't really see the need for this. The names aren't
clearly better, and the downside is that they move away
from the terminlogy we've been using in the page allocator
for the past few years.
I thought they were heaps better, actually.
Some? Alot? Musthave?
To me it just changed the manner in which the hands are waving.
Actually, I like the current names because ALLOC_HIGH explicitly
is used for __GFP_HIGH allocations, and MUSTHAVE is not really
an improvement on NO_WATERMARKS.
However if you'd really like to change the names, I'd prefer them
to be more consistent, eg:
ALLOC_DIP_NONE
ALLOC_DIP_LESS
ALLOC_DIP_MORE
ALLOC_DIP_FULL
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
