From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:36:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Light Fragmentation Avoidance V20: 001_antidefrag_flags In-Reply-To: <20051115150054.606ce0df.pj@sgi.com> Message-ID: References: <20051115164946.21980.2026.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie> <20051115164952.21980.3852.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie> <20051115150054.606ce0df.pj@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Jackson Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-ID: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Paul Jackson wrote: > Mel wrote: > > #define __GFP_VALID ((__force gfp_t)0x80000000u) /* valid GFP flags */ > > > > +/* > > + * Allocation type modifier > > + * __GFP_EASYRCLM: Easily reclaimed pages like userspace or buffer pages > > + */ > > +#define __GFP_EASYRCLM 0x80000u /* User and other easily reclaimed pages */ > > + > > How about fitting the style (casts, just one line) of the other flags, > so that these added six lines become instead just the one line: > > #define __GFP_EASYRCLM ((__force gfp_t)0x80000u) /* easily reclaimed pages */ > > (Yeah - it was probably me that asked for -more- comments sometime in > the past - consistency is not my strong suit ;). > No, you're right, my declaration is wrong. Changed to +#define __GFP_EASYRCLM ((__force gfp_t)0x80000u) Comment to right removed because the comment above the declaration covers everything. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Java Applications Developer University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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