Re: A solution for more GFP_xx flags?

[Peter Chubb <peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au>]

>>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> writes:

Christoph> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Peter Chubb wrote:
>> Dunno about you, but the thought of passing structs around on the
>> stack gives me the heebie jeebies, especially if they're going to
>> be more than a word or so big.

Christoph> Right.
 
>> Either pass by reference, or separate out the args, so it's
>> explicit how much info's being copied around.

Christoph> Maybe I misunderstood Nick but I did not think he was
Christoph> proposing pushing structs on the stack.

Maybe I misunderstood you:

Christoph> We could define a structure

Christoph> struct allocation_control {
Christoph> 	unsigned long flags;	/* Traditional flags */
Christoph> 	int node;
Christoph> 	struct cpuset_context *cpuset;
Christoph>	struct mempol *mpol;
Christoph> };

Christoph>We could define struct constants called GFP_KERNEL and GFP_ATOMIC.
Christoph> const struct allocation_control gfp_kernel {
Christoph>	GFP_KERNEL, -1, NULL, NULL
Christoph> }

Christoph> And then do

Christoph> alloc_pages(n, gfp_kernel)

Did you mean alloc_pages(n, &gfp_kernel) ??


--
Dr Peter Chubb  http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au  peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au
http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au           ERTOS within National ICT Australia

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>