From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:29:10 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove __pte_offset Message-ID: <631570000.1046820550@flay> In-Reply-To: <20030304182652.B16110@redhat.com> References: <3E653012.5040503@us.ibm.com> <3E6530B3.2000906@us.ibm.com> <20030304181002.A16110@redhat.com> <629570000.1046819361@flay> <20030304182652.B16110@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 Cc: Dave Hansen , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > 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. It's not a pfn index though - pfns are physical, this is virtual still. It's the index into the pte page ... vaddr_to_pte_page_index I guess, but pte_index seems easier ;-) > akpm > pfn = pageframe number. Right, yes ... but that's still really just a physical address (>> PAGE_SHIFT). I was trying to emphasize phys vs virt. But I was being needlessly obtuse ;-) M. -- 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