From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438926B003D for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:24:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <498B2EBC.60700@goop.org> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:23:56 -0800 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: pud_bad vs pud_bad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: William Lee Irwin III , Ingo Molnar Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: I'm looking at unifying the 32 and 64-bit versions of pud_bad. 32-bits defines it as: static inline int pud_bad(pud_t pud) { return (pud_val(pud) & ~(PTE_PFN_MASK | _KERNPG_TABLE | _PAGE_USER)) != 0; } and 64 as: static inline int pud_bad(pud_t pud) { return (pud_val(pud) & ~(PTE_PFN_MASK | _PAGE_USER)) != _KERNPG_TABLE; } I'm inclined to go with the 64-bit version, but I'm wondering if there's something subtle I'm missing here. Thoughts? J -- 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