From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3E653D69.8000007@us.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:57:29 -0800 From: Dave Hansen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove __pte_offset References: <3E653012.5040503@us.ibm.com> <3E6530B3.2000906@us.ibm.com> <20030304181002.A16110@redhat.com> <629570000.1046819361@flay> <20030304182652.B16110@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:09:21PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >>For pte_index? Surely they're completely separate things? >>pte_index returns a virtual address offset into the pte, and >>pte_to_pfn returns a physical address? > > Sorry, I was only thinking about the type of the index initially, not > the type of the data being passed into the macro. Yes, the macro does > take an address, so it should be more like addr_to_pfn_index or somesuch. > I still think pte_index isn't clear, though. While we're on the subject, does anyone else find the p*_offset functions confusing? Maybe something like this? vaddr_to_pgd_entry(mm, address) virt_to_pgd_entry(mm, address) -- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com -- 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