From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:54:26 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Extend clear_page by an order parameter In-Reply-To: <16881.43936.632734.780383@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20050108135636.6796419a.davem@davemloft.net> <16881.33367.660452.55933@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <16881.40893.35593.458777@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20050121164353.6f205fbc.akpm@osdl.org> <16881.43936.632734.780383@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Mackerras Cc: Andrew Morton , davem@davemloft.net, hugh@veritas.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Christoph's patch is bigger than it needs to be because he has to > change all the occurrences of clear_page(x) to clear_page(x, 0), and > then he has to change a lot of architectures' clear_page functions to > be called _clear_page instead. If he picked a different name for the > "clear a higher order page" function it would end up being less > invasive as well as less confusing. I had the name "zero_page" in V1 and V2 of the patch where it was separate. Then someone complained about code duplication. > The argument that clear_page is called that because it clears a higher > order page won't wash; all the clear_page implementations in his patch > are perfectly capable of clearing any contiguous set of 2^order pages > (oops, I mean "zero-order pages"), not just a "higher order page". clear_page is called clear_page because it clears one page of *any* order not just higher orders. zero-order pages are not segregated nor are they intrisincally better just because they contain more memory ;-). -- 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