From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [6/13] Core maskable allocator From: corbet@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:07:16 +0100." <20080307090716.9D3E91B419C@basil.firstfloor.org> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:34:53 -0600 Message-ID: <26256.1205249693@vena.lwn.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, Andi, As I dig through this patch, I find it mostly makes sense; seems like it could be a good idea. I did have one little API question... > +struct page * > +alloc_pages_mask(gfp_t gfp, unsigned size, u64 mask) > +{ > + unsigned long max_pfn = mask >> PAGE_SHIFT; The "mask" parameter isn't really a mask - it's an upper bound on the address of the allocated memory. Might it be better to call it "max_addr" or "limit" or "ceiling" or some such so callers understand for sure how it's interpreted? The use of the term "mask" throughout the interface could maybe create a certain amount of confusion. Thanks, jon -- 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