From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anshuman Khandual Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/pgtable: Move extern zero_pfn outside __HAVE_COLOR_ZERO_PAGE Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:18:53 +0530 Message-ID: <19858112-8f10-493c-9873-84f2000b00b0@arm.com> References: <1592280498-15442-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:34568 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725911AbgFPJtB (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:49:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Hildenbrand , linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/16/2020 01:09 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 16.06.20 06:08, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> zero_pfn variable is required whether __HAVE_COLOR_ZERO_PAGE is enabled > > Why is that relevant for this patch? That just states how it is organized right now wrt __HAVE_COLOR_ZERO_PAGE. > >> or not. Also it should not really be declared individually in all functions >> where it gets used. Just move the declaration outside, which also makes it >> available for other potential users. > > So, all you're essentially doing is exposing zero_pfn in pgtable.h now. Right, but it just happens in the process of consolidating three different instances of 'extern unsigned long zero_pfn' in the same file which are redundant. > > If everybody should just use my_zero_pfn(), I don't really see the > benefit of this patch, sorry. It consolidates redundant declarations and reduces code. We could just have a comment for zero_pfn stating that it should not be used directly.