From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1336B003D for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:26:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <498B3D80.1010206@goop.org> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:26:56 -0800 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: pud_bad vs pud_bad References: <498B2EBC.60700@goop.org> <20090205184355.GF5661@elte.hu> <498B35F9.601@goop.org> <20090205191017.GF20470@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20090205191017.GF20470@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: William Lee Irwin III , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: Ingo Molnar wrote: > But the 32-bit check does the exact same thing but via a single binary > operation: it checks whether any bits outside of those bits are zero - just > via a simpler test that compiles to more compact code. > > So i'd go with the 32-bit version. (unless there are some sign-extension > complications i'm missing - but i think we got rid of those already.) OK, fair enough. I wouldn't be surprised if gcc does that transform anyway, but we may as well be consistent about it. 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