From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <32829.4.64.238.61.1046835165.squirrel@www.osdl.org> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:32:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove __pte_offset From: "Randy.Dunlap" In-Reply-To: <20030304180417.252b2fde.akpm@digeo.com> References: <3E653012.5040503@us.ibm.com> <3E6530B3.2000906@us.ibm.com> <20030304181002.A16110@redhat.com> <629570000.1046819361@flay> <20030304182652.B16110@redhat.com> <3E653D69.8000007@us.ibm.com> <20030304160150.7d67e011.akpm@digeo.com> <635420000.1046828613@flay> <20030304180417.252b2fde.akpm@digeo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: akpm@digeo.com Cc: mbligh@aracnet.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, bcrl@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > "Martin J. Bligh" wrote: >> >> >> While we're on the subject, does anyone else find the p*_offset >> functions confusing? >> > >> > How about sticking nice comments over them, rather than rampant >> renamings? >> >> Would be nice if you could know what the thing did by just looking at the >> caller rather than the definition. >> >> Remaning everything is probably bad, but the renames of __pgd_offset et >> al seem eminently sane to me, the fact that pgd_offset and __pgd_offset >> return different types seems like horrible confusion for no real reason or >> benefit, especially when pgd_index already exists ... >> > > Oh I agree that pte_index is a fine name for it. But not commenting the > damn things is a bug. Sigh. Hooray for that attitude! ~Randy -- 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: aart@kvack.org