Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: rename PTE_MASK to PTE_PFN_MASK

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:

> On Tuesday 22 July 2008 18:36:26 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> > > Rusty, in his peevish way, complained that macros defining constants
> > > should have a name which somewhat accurately reflects the actual
> > > purpose of the constant.
> >
> > Applied to tip/x86/cleanups anyway. Rusty will find out himself how bad
> > this whole concept of clean and understandable code is, soon enough!
> 
> I am disgusted with this inappropriate emphasis on clarity over 
> obscurity.  It should be pretty clear to everyone here that we can't 
> have both!
> 
> Fortunately, there is a way to partially rectify the situation. Ingo, 
> please apply.

> +/* There's something suspicious about this line: see PTE_PFN_MASK comment. */
>  #define __PHYSICAL_MASK		((phys_addr_t)(1ULL << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT) - 1)

>  /* PTE_PFN_MASK extracts the PFN from a (pte|pmd|pud|pgd)val_t */
> +/* This line is quite subtle.  See __PHYSICAL_MASK comment above. */
>  #define PTE_PFN_MASK		((pteval_t)PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK)

Now that you and Jeremy have thoroughly destroyed this file's obscurity 
with your disgusting cleanups and clarifications, i fear it's beyond 
repair. No matter how much i'd love to apply this infinitely recursive 
piece of documentation (what a genius it takes to even think of it!) i 
regret that i cannot. So sad.

	Ingo