From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 00B4E6B0111 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:26:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n3N0RHTs026652 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:27:17 +0900 Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3DBD45DD87 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:27:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA4045DD7B for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:27:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15D1E08003 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:27:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.107]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4453F1DB8041 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:27:16 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/22] Use allocation flags as an index to the zone watermark In-Reply-To: <1240422423.10627.96.camel@nimitz> References: <20090422171451.GG15367@csn.ul.ie> <1240422423.10627.96.camel@nimitz> Message-Id: <20090423092350.F6E6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:27:15 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Dave Hansen Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Mel Gorman , Linux Memory Management List , Christoph Lameter , Nick Piggin , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Lin Ming , Zhang Yanmin , Peter Zijlstra , Pekka Enberg , Andrew Morton List-ID: > On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18:14 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Preference of taste really. When I started a conversion to accessors, it > > changed something recognised to something new that looked uglier to me. > > Only one place cares about the union enough to access is via an array so > > why spread it everywhere. > > Personally, I'd say for consistency. Someone looking at both forms > wouldn't necessarily know that they refer to the same variables unless > they know about the union. for just clalification... AFAIK, C language specification don't gurantee point same value. compiler can insert pad between struct-member and member, but not insert into array. However, all gcc version don't do that. I think. but perhaps I missed some minor gcc release.. So, I also like Dave's idea. but it only personal feeling. -- 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