From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6022F6B003D for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:44:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:43:55 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: pud_bad vs pud_bad Message-ID: <20090205184355.GF5661@elte.hu> References: <498B2EBC.60700@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <498B2EBC.60700@goop.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: William Lee Irwin III , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: * Jeremy Fitzhardinge 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: email@kvack.org