On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:59:18 -0500
Lee Schermerhorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 10:42 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:24:34 +0900
> > KOSAKI Motohiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > below patch is a bit cleanup proposal.
> > > i think LRU_FILE is more clarify than "/2".
> > >
> > > What do you think it?
> >
> > Thank you for the cleanup, your version looks a lot nicer.
> > I have applied your patch to my series.
> >
>
> Rik:
>
> I think we also want to do something like:
>
> - BUILD_BUG_ON(LRU_INACTIVE_FILE != 2 || LRU_ACTIVE_FILE != 3);
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(LRU_INACTIVE_FILE != 2 || LRU_ACTIVE_FILE != 3 ||
> + NR_LRU_LISTS > 6);
>
> Then we'll be warned if future change might break our implicit
> assumption that any lru_list value with '0x2' set is a file lru.
Restoring the code to your original version makes things work again.
OTOH, I almost wonder if we should not simply define it to
return (l == LRU_INACTIVE_FILE || l == LRU_ACTIVE_FILE)
and just deal with it.
Your version of the code is correct and probably faster, but not as
easy to read and probably not in a hot path :)
--
All rights reversed.
--
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/
