Re: virt_to_offset()

David Mosberger
2003-08-11T18:24:16Z

Yoshifuji> In article <20030810013041.679ddc4c.davem@redhat.com> (at
Yoshifuji> Sun, 10 Aug 2003 01:30:41 -0700), "David S. Miller"
Yoshifuji> <davem@redhat.com> says:
>> > BTW, we spread ((long) ptr & ~PAGE_MASK); it seems ugly. > Why
>> don't we have vert_to_offset(ptr) or something like this? >
>> #define virt_to_offset(ptr) ((unsigned long) (ptr) & ~PAGE_MASK)
>> > Is this bad idea?

>> With some name like "virt_to_pageoff()" it sounds like a great
>> idea.

Yoshifuji> Okay. How about this? (I'm going to do the actual
Yoshifuji> conversion soon.)

It's a bad choice of name. X_to_Y() normally implies that X and Y are
basically different representations of the same thing (e.g., a page
pointer vs. a virtual address). However, virt_to_pageoff() is a
one-way translation, so it's misleading. In my opinion, it should be
called page_offset() or something like that.

--david