From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from digeo-nav01.digeo.com (digeo-nav01.digeo.com [192.168.1.233]) by packet.digeo.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA26752 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:03:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:04:17 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove __pte_offset Message-Id: <20030304180417.252b2fde.akpm@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: <635420000.1046828613@flay> References: <3E653012.5040503@us.ibm.com> <3E6530B3.2000906@us.ibm.com> <20030304181002.A16110@redhat.com> <629570000.1046819361@flay> <20030304182652.B16110@redhat.com> <3E653D69.8000007@us.ibm.com> <20030304160150.7d67e011.akpm@digeo.com> <635420000.1046828613@flay> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: haveblue@us.ibm.com, bcrl@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: "Martin J. Bligh" wrote: > > >> While we're on the subject, does anyone else find the p*_offset > >> functions confusing? > > > > How about sticking nice comments over them, rather than rampant renamings? > > Would be nice if you could know what the thing did by just looking at > the caller rather than the definition. > > Remaning everything is probably bad, but the renames of __pgd_offset > et al seem eminently sane to me, the fact that pgd_offset and __pgd_offset > return different types seems like horrible confusion for no real reason > or benefit, especially when pgd_index already exists ... > Oh I agree that pte_index is a fine name for it. But not commenting the damn things is a bug. Sigh. -- 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/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org