From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADED18D003B for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 03:08:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2823EE0AE for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:08:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FFEE45DE95 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:08:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F0D45DE88 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:08:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0991E38002 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:08:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.134]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE063E08003 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:08:51 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH followup] mm: get rid of CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP || CONFIG_IA64 In-Reply-To: <20110420065943.GA18799@tiehlicka.suse.cz> References: <20110420093326.45EF.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110420065943.GA18799@tiehlicka.suse.cz> Message-Id: <20110420160946.4629.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:08:51 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML > Hi Kosaki, > > On Wed 20-04-11 09:33:26, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > While I am in the cleanup mode. We should use VM_GROWSUP rather than > > > tricky CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP||CONFIG_IA64. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > Now, VM_GROWSUP share the same value with VM_NOHUGEPAGE. > > (this trick use the fact that thp don't support any stack growup architecture) > > I am not sure I understand you. AFAICS, VM_GROWSUP is defined to non 0 > only if CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP||CONFIG_IA64 (include/linux/mm.h). > And we use it to determine whether expand_stack_growsup[*] should be > defined (in include/linux/mm.h). > > The patch basically unifies the way how we export expand_stack_growsup > function and how define it (in mm/mmap.c). > > So either we should use CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP||CONFIG_IA64 at both places > or we should use VM_GROWSUP trick. I am for the later one. > > Am I missing something? > > --- > [*] the previous patch renamed expand_growsup to expand_stack_growsup. Right you are. sorry. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org