On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 01:03 -0800, 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.
>
> -#define ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS 0x01 /* don't check watermarks at all */
> -#define ALLOC_HARDER 0x02 /* try to alloc harder */
> -#define ALLOC_HIGH 0x04 /* __GFP_HIGH set */
> +#define ALLOC_DONT_DIP 0x01 /* don't dip into memory reserves */
> +#define ALLOC_DIP_SOME 0x02 /* dip into reserves some */
> +#define ALLOC_DIP_ALOT 0x04 /* dip into reserves further */
> +#define ALLOC_MUSTHAVE 0x08 /* ignore all constraints */
>
> very explicit.
maybe.
however... if names get changed anyway, maybe name them based on intent?
ALLOC_NORMAL
ALLOC_KERNELTHREAD
ALLOC_VMCAUSED
ALLOC_WOULDDEADLOCK
or something.. yes these are lame
perhaps both are needed.. bitflags for the implementation, and defines
based on usage that are compounded bitflags..
-
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]
