Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:
pud_addr_end?
next = pud_addr_end(addr, end);
Hmm, yes, I'll go with that, thanks (unless a better idea follows).
Something I do intend on top of what I sent before, is another set
of three macros, like
if (pud_none_or_clear_bad(pud))
continue;
to replace all the p??_none, p??_bad clauses: not to save space,
but just for clarity, those loops now seeming dominated by the
unlikeliest of cases.
Has anyone _ever_ seen a p??_ERROR message? I'm inclined to just
put three functions into mm/memory.c to do the p??_ERROR and p??_clear,
but that way the __FILE__ and __LINE__ will always come out the same.
I think if it ever proves a problem, we'd just add in a dump_stack.
I think a function is the most sensible. And a good idea, it should
reduce the icache pressure in the loops (although gcc does seem to
do a pretty good job of moving unlikely()s away from the fastpath).
I think at the point these things get detected, there is little use
for having a dump_stack. But we may as well add one anyway if it is
an out of line function?
Nick
-
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/
