From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262078AbTJILa5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 07:30:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262081AbTJILa4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 07:30:56 -0400 Received: from colin2.muc.de ([193.149.48.15]:56338 "HELO colin2.muc.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262078AbTJILa4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 07:30:56 -0400 Date: 9 Oct 2003 13:31:11 +0200 Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:31:11 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Muli Ben-Yehuda Cc: Andi Kleen , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bos@serpentine.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix mlockall for PROT_NONE mappings Message-ID: <20031009113111.GA48461@colin2.muc.de> References: <20031009104218.GA1935@averell> <20031009104918.GB4699@actcom.co.il> <20031009112245.GA59762@colin2.muc.de> <20031009112458.GE4699@actcom.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031009112458.GE4699@actcom.co.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I agree that improved readability is not "essential". Do you agree > that it's preferable? I don't think this version is particularly unreadable or that your change would improve it very much. (to make any sense of a function with 6+ arguments you have to look at the function definition, no way around that, and there is a comment that explains it there), so I don't think the change is particularly important. -Andi