From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx183.postini.com [74.125.245.183]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BA6F6B0044 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 05:43:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FB4C7DC.7020309@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 13:41:48 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC] SL[AUO]B common code 1/9] [slob] define page struct fields used in mm_types.h References: <20120514201544.334122849@linux.com> <20120514201609.418025254@linux.com> <4FB357C9.8080308@parallels.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes , Matt Mackall On 05/16/2012 07:38 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2012, Christoph Lameter wrote: > >> > On Wed, 16 May 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: >> > >>> > > It is of course ok to reuse the field, but what about we make it a union >>> > > between "list" and "lru" ? >> > >> > That is what this patch does. You are commenting on code that was >> > removed. > Argh. No it doesnt..... It will be easy to add though. But then you have > two list_head definitions in page struct that just differ in name. As I said previously, it sounds stupid if you look from the typing system point of view. But when I read something like: list_add(&sp->lru, list), something very special assumptions about list ordering comes to mind. It's something that should be done for the sake of the readers. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org