Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Stop using __put_page and page_count in i386 pageattr.c
>
who, where, what, why, when?? The patch appears to ascribe some special
significance to page->private, but you don't tell us what it is. And if
that's not obvious from reading the patch, it won't be obvious to people
who are later reading the code.
iow: you owe us a nice comment, please.
>
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/i386/mm/pageattr.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/i386/mm/pageattr.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/i386/mm/pageattr.c
> @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ static struct page *split_large_page(uns
> if (!base)
> return NULL;
>
> + SetPagePrivate(base);
> + page_private(base) = 0;
A "function call" as an lval give me hiccups. Use set_page_private(p, v),
please.
> address = __pa(address);
> addr = address & LARGE_PAGE_MASK;
> pbase = (pte_t *)page_address(base);
> @@ -143,11 +146,12 @@ __change_page_attr(struct page *page, pg
> return -ENOMEM;
> set_pmd_pte(kpte,address,mk_pte(split, ref_prot));
> kpte_page = split;
> - }
> - get_page(kpte_page);
> + }
> + page_private(kpte_page)++;
Ditto, really. If we're going to be nice about this it should be
set_page_private(page, page_private(page) + 1);
> + page_private(kpte_page)--;
Ditto.
Or we just forget about page_private() and go back to using page->private -
page_private() was rather a stopgap thing.
Then again, we perform unnatural acts upon the pageframe so regularly that
I suspect the abstraction might prove useful in the future..
-
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]
