On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:48:41 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo....@lge.com> wrote:
> In each rmap traverse case, there is some difference so that we need > function pointers and arguments to them in order to handle these > difference properly. > > For this purpose, struct rmap_walk_control is introduced in this patch, > and will be extended in following patch. Introducing and extending are > separate, because it clarify changes. > > --- a/mm/migrate.c > +++ b/mm/migrate.c > @@ -198,7 +198,12 @@ out: > */ > static void remove_migration_ptes(struct page *old, struct page *new) > { > - rmap_walk(new, remove_migration_pte, old); > + struct rmap_walk_control rwc; > + > + memset(&rwc, 0, sizeof(rwc)); > + rwc.main = remove_migration_pte; > + rwc.arg = old; > + rmap_walk(new, &rwc); > } It is much neater to do struct rmap_walk_control rwc = { .main = remove_migration_pte, .arg = old, }; which will zero out all remaining fields as well. -- 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/