On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 02:56:00PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 01/11, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 04:53:37PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > I simply can't understand, this all looks like overkill. Can't you simply > > > add > > > > > > #idfef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE > > > case GET: > > > error = test_bit(MMF_THP_DISABLE); > > > break; > > > case PUT: > > > if (arg2) > > > set_bit(); > > > else > > > clear_bit(); > > > break; > > > #endif > > > > > > into sys_prctl() ? > > > > That's probably a better solution. I wasn't sure whether or not it was > > better to have two functions to handle this, or to have one function > > handle both. If you think it's better to just handle both with one, > > that's easy enough to change. > > Personally I think sys_prctl() can handle this itself, without a helper. > But of course I won't argue, this is up to you. > > My only point is, the kernel is already huge ;) Imho it makes sense to > try to lessen the code size, when the logic is simple.
I agree with you here as well. There was a mixed bag of PRCTLs using helpers vs. ones that put the code right into sys_prctl. I just arbitrarily chose to use a helper here. I'll switch that over for v2. - Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
