On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:02:47 +0100 (BST)
> Hugh Dickins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Or should I now leave PG_swapcache as is,
> > given your designs on page->mapping?
> >
> will conflict with my idea ?
> ==
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=118956492926821&w=2
> ==
I asked because I had thought it would be a serious conflict: obviously
the patches as such would conflict quite a bit, but that's not serious,
one or the other just gets fixed up.
But now I don't see it - we both want to grab a further bit from the
low bits of the page->mapping pointer, you PAGE_MAPPING_INFO and me
PAGE_MAPPING_SWAP; but that's okay, so long as whoever is left using
bit (1<<2) is careful about the 32-bit case and remembers to put
__attribute__((aligned(sizeof(long long))))
on the declarations of struct address_space and struct anon_vma
and your struct page_mapping_info.
Would that waste a little memory? I think not with SLUB,
but perhaps with SLOB, which packs a little tighter.
Hugh
-
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]
