From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Righi Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: unify pmd_free() implementation Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:19:44 +0200 Message-ID: <488DFFB0.1090107@gmail.com> References: <488DF119.2000004@gmail.com> <20080729012656.566F.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Reply-To: righi.andrea@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:60051 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756388AbYG1RTs (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:19:48 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 19so2121291fgg.17 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:19:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080729012656.566F.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: KOSAKI Motohiro , Linus Torvalds Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> yep! clear. >> >> Ok, in this case wouldn't be better at least to define pud_free() as: >> >> static inline pud_free(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd) >> { >> } > > I also like this :) ok, a simpler patch using the inline function will follow. -Andrea