From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: struct page field arrangement Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:50:55 +0000 Message-ID: <45E6DA3F.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> References: <45E6CB06.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >By the way, I think your proposed patch looks okay. However we already use >page->index for foreign pages, in netback. Perhaps page->lru is also fair >game? :-) Not generally, there are arch-es that use it for their own purposes (look back at the message from Hugh I originally forwarded). So even if none of Xen's currently supported would use it (I didn't check), I wouldn't want to introduce a lurking issue if anyone comes up with a new port. I didn't check what private is being used for - while it can't be used for PageForeign's destructor pointer, perhaps netback could use that one rather than index? Or, even more likely, netback could use mapping if PageForeign was switched over to index (while mapping overlays ptl, that is benign to netback as it's not dealing with pte pages). But of course, this requires thorough auditing of other uses of index. Jan