On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:15 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > 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 :)
Sure. Whatever you think will fly... Lee > -- 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/
