From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 10:20:16 +0100 (IST) From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] Split the free lists into kernel and user parts In-Reply-To: <1157702040.17799.40.camel@lappy> Message-ID: References: <20060907190342.6166.49732.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> <20060907190422.6166.49758.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> <1157702040.17799.40.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hi Mel, > > Looking good, some small nits follow. > > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 20:04 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > >> +#define for_each_rclmtype_order(type, order) \ >> + for (order = 0; order < MAX_ORDER; order++) \ >> + for (type = 0; type < RCLM_TYPES; type++) > > It seems odd to me that you have the for loops in reverse order of the > arguments. > I'll fix that. >> +static inline int get_pageblock_type(struct page *page) >> +{ >> + return (PageEasyRclm(page) != 0); >> +} > > I find the naming a little odd, I would have suspected something like: > get_page_blocktype() or thereabout since you're getting a page > attribute. > This is a throwback from an early version when I used a bitmap that used one bit per MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES block of pages. Many pages in a block shared one bit - hence get_pageblock_type(). The name is now stupid. I'll fix it. >> +static inline int gfpflags_to_rclmtype(unsigned long gfp_flags) >> +{ >> + return ((gfp_flags & __GFP_EASYRCLM) != 0); >> +} > > gfp_t argument? > doh, yes, it should be gfp_t Thanks -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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