From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757357AbYJVQfs (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:35:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757082AbYJVQfg (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:35:36 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.172]:40354 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757045AbYJVQfe (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:35:34 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=eL6Gneh4Wr+UhNIgzerUDuUJNpxt9p34nM25iZZ7b+co0no2Evr6X5lfJbKBfuVqTJ nv2Ds2fQ5UeobZAsQmOfu/as6Pmp/wCTKsA0WcM3BUdlRrYloRBiDCilKJL4p5v8mIGJ 1lzLaEdcpfJYDNHl8d4aaHJ5exgrkv1m9JxkM= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:35:30 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Pekka Enberg , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC] SLUB - define OO_ macro instead of hardcoded numbers Message-ID: <20081022163530.GH9639@localhost> References: <20081022161836.GG9639@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Christoph Lameter - Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:28:14AM -0700] > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > >> Please check -- wouldn't it be better to use such a macro? > > Looks good. But could you rename OO_MAX to something different? There is > already s->max which may cause confusion because s->max is the maximum > number of objects in a slab. OO_MAX is the maximum mask? > I supposed it would mean maximum object number inside page (ie quantity) which is happen to be the same value as OO_MASK. Maybe OO_MAX_OBJ? - Cyrill -