From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753807AbYJVQyQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:54:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751729AbYJVQx7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:53:59 -0400 Received: from gv-out-0910.google.com ([216.239.58.184]:17590 "EHLO gv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751208AbYJVQx7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:53:59 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=dBckr/xJUrCbOjKvHifQhH3yUzXPT4Hop4oCsnowYhqHWmVH6tcp/kgrDx/axNisN8 yq76x/3nnZuCGmAK937vkLGRkz4cyT/erZhqmbbK4TQJJh/emEz9KYq4z00Rgq4/bt5q AZ+XpSLX+RQHrSmwkLxnDQZDGEpaEht2ztKg8= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:53:54 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC] SLUB - define OO_ macro instead of hardcoded numbers Message-ID: <20081022165354.GI9639@localhost> References: <20081022161836.GG9639@localhost> <20081022163530.GH9639@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081022163530.GH9639@localhost> 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 [Cyrill Gorcunov - Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:35:30PM +0400] | [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 - Btw Christoph fix me if I'm wrong but this 65535 is directly related to 16 bit shift. If we change the first value without changing the second we just break the SLUB I guess. I didn't read/understand SLUB code in details so could be wrong. - Cyrill -