On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 05:12 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > OK after sleeping on it, I'm warming to your way. > > > > I don't think it makes something like David's modifications any > > easier, but mine didn't go a long way to that end either. And > > being a more incremental approach gives us more room to move in > > future (for example, maybe toward something that really *will* > > accommodate the bitmap walking code nicely). > > I'll take a quick look at David's today. > Just so long as we don't make them harder. > No, I think we may want to move to something better abstracted: it makes things sufficiently complex that you wouldn't want to have it open coded everywhere. But no, you're not making it harder than the present situation. > > So I'd be pretty happy for you to queue this up with Andrew for > > 2.6.12. Anyone else? > > Oh, okay, thanks. You weren't very happy with p??_limit(addr, end), > and good naming is important to me. I didn't care for your tentative > p??_span or p??_span_end. Would p??_end be better? p??_enda would > be fun for one of them... > pud_addr_end? http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile - Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile. - 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/
