From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:09:21 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove __pte_offset Message-ID: <629570000.1046819361@flay> In-Reply-To: <20030304181002.A16110@redhat.com> References: <3E653012.5040503@us.ibm.com> <3E6530B3.2000906@us.ibm.com> <20030304181002.A16110@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Benjamin LaHaise , Dave Hansen Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: >> ptes this time > > Isn't pte_to_pfn a better name? index doesn't have a type of data > implied, whereas pfn does. We have to make these distinctions clearer > as work like William's PAGE_SIZE is being done. 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? -- 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