On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:02:47 +0100 (BST) > Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Or should I now leave PG_swapcache as is, > > given your designs on page->mapping? > > > will conflict with my idea ? > == > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=118956492926821&w=2 > ==
I asked because I had thought it would be a serious conflict: obviously the patches as such would conflict quite a bit, but that's not serious, one or the other just gets fixed up. But now I don't see it - we both want to grab a further bit from the low bits of the page->mapping pointer, you PAGE_MAPPING_INFO and me PAGE_MAPPING_SWAP; but that's okay, so long as whoever is left using bit (1<<2) is careful about the 32-bit case and remembers to put __attribute__((aligned(sizeof(long long)))) on the declarations of struct address_space and struct anon_vma and your struct page_mapping_info. Would that waste a little memory? I think not with SLUB, but perhaps with SLOB, which packs a little tighter. Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
