> On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:01 +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> > static inline unsigned long wait_table_size(unsigned long pages)
> > {
> > unsigned long size = 1;
> > @@ -1803,6 +1804,17 @@ static inline unsigned long wait_table_s
> >
> > return max(size, 4UL);
> > }
> > +#else
> > +/*
> > + * XXX: Because zone size might be changed by hot-add,
> > + * It is hard to determin suitable size for wait_table as
> > traditional.
> > + * So, we use maximum size now.
> > + */
> > +static inline unsigned long wait_table_size(unsigned long pages)
> > +{
> > + return 4096UL;
> > +}
> > +#endif
>
> Sorry for the slow response. My IBM email is temporarily dead.
>
> Couple of things.
>
> First, is there anything useful that prepending UL to the constants does
> to the functions? It ends up looking a little messy to me.
I would like to show that it is max size of original wait_table_size().
Original one uses 4096UL for it.
> Also, I thought you were going to put a big fat comment on there about
> doing it correctly in the future. It would also be nice to quantify the
> wasted space in terms of bytes, just so that people get a feel for it.
Hmmm. Ok.
> Oh, and wait_table_size() needs a unit. wait_table_size_bytes() sounds
> like a winner to me.
This size doesn't mean bytes. It is hash table entry size.
So, wait_table_hash_size() or wait_table_entry_size() might be better.
Thanks.
--
Yasunori Goto
-
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]
