From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: pud_bad vs pud_bad
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:43:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090205184355.GF5661@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <498B2EBC.60700@goop.org>
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> I'm looking at unifying the 32 and 64-bit versions of pud_bad.
>
> 32-bits defines it as:
>
> static inline int pud_bad(pud_t pud)
> {
> return (pud_val(pud) & ~(PTE_PFN_MASK | _KERNPG_TABLE | _PAGE_USER)) != 0;
> }
>
> and 64 as:
>
> static inline int pud_bad(pud_t pud)
> {
> return (pud_val(pud) & ~(PTE_PFN_MASK | _PAGE_USER)) != _KERNPG_TABLE;
> }
>
>
> I'm inclined to go with the 64-bit version, but I'm wondering if there's
> something subtle I'm missing here.
Why go with the 64-bit version? The 32-bit check looks more compact and
should result in smaller code.
Ingo
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-05 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-05 18:23 Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-05 18:43 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-02-05 18:54 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-05 19:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-05 19:26 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-05 19:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-05 19:38 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-02-05 19:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-05 19:58 ` wli
2009-02-05 20:14 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-02-05 20:56 ` wli
2009-02-05 21:09 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-02-05 20:12 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-02-05 20:42 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-05 20:51 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-02-05 21:05 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-05 21:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-05 22:07 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-05 23:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-06 0:08 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-06 0:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-05 20:57 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090205184355.GF5661@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox