From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 12:25:47 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: Why *not* rmap, anyway? Message-ID: <20020507192547.GU15756@holomorphy.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Christian Smith , Daniel Phillips , Joseph A Knapka , "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 7 May 2002, Christian Smith wrote: >> I don't like using a data structure as an 'API'. An API ideally gives >> you an interface to what you need to do, not how it's done. Sure, APIs >> can become obsolete, but function calls are MUCH easier to provide >> legacy support for than a large, complex data structure. On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 04:23:34PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > OK, this I can agree with. > I'd be interested in working with you towards a way of > hiding some of the data structure manipulation behind > a more abstract interface, kind of like what I've done > with the -rmap stuff ... nothing outside of rmap.c > knows about struct pte_chain and nothing should know. > If you could help find ways in which we can abstract > out manipulation of some more data structures I'd be > really happy to help implement and clean up stuff. > kind regards, Procedural interfaces to pagetable manipulations are largely what the BSD pmap and SVR4 HAT layers consisted of, no? Cheers, Bill -- 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/