From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE8B6B0055 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 03:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:03:19 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] [9/16] HWPOISON: Use bitmask/action code for try_to_unmap behaviour Message-ID: <20090528080319.GA1065@one.firstfloor.org> References: <200905271012.668777061@firstfloor.org> <20090527201235.9475E1D0292@basil.firstfloor.org> <20090528072703.GF6920@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090528072703.GF6920@wotan.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andi Kleen , Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, fengguang.wu@intel.com List-ID: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:27:03AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > Not a bad idea, but I would prefer to have a set of flags which tell > try_to_unmap what to do, and then combine them with #defines for > callers. Like gfp flags. That's exactly what the patch does? It just has actions and flags because the actions can be contradictory. > And just use regular bitops rather than this TTU_ACTION macro. TTU_ACTION does mask against multiple bits. None of the regular bitops do that. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org