From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:26:52 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: migration cache, updated Message-ID: <20041028162652.GC7562@logos.cnet> References: <20041026092535.GE24462@logos.cnet> <20041026.230110.21315175.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20041026122419.GD27014@logos.cnet> <20041027.224837.118287069.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20041028151928.GA7562@logos.cnet> <20041028160520.GB7562@logos.cnet> <41813FCD.3070503@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41813FCD.3070503@us.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave Hansen Cc: Hirokazu Takahashi , linux-mm@kvack.org, iwamoto@valinux.co.jp, hugh@veritas.com List-ID: On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 11:51:57AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > >+static inline int PageMigration(struct page *page) > >+{ > >+ swp_entry_t entry; > >+ > >+ if (!PageSwapCache(page)) > >+ return 0; > >+ > >+ entry.val = page->private; > >+ > >+ if (swp_type(entry) != MIGRATION_TYPE) > >+ return 0; > >+ > >+ return 1; > >+} > > Don't we usually try to keep the Page*() operations to be strict > page->flags checks? Should this be page_migration() or something > similar instead? Yeah I think page_migration() will be more conformant to the current macros. Will do it, and upgrade to the latest -mhp. What is it again? -- 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