Em Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:58:38PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert escreveu: > On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:00:50 -0300 > Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I keep thinking that this change is making things unclear. > > > > I.e. the _start_ of a map (map->start) is _in_ the map, and the _end_ > > of a map (map->end) is _in_ the map as well. > > > > if (addr > m->end) > > > > is shorter than: > > > > if (addr >= m->end) > > > > "start" and "end" should have the same rule applied, i.e. if one is in, > > the other is in as well. > > > > Etc. > > > > But the convention used in the memory management code is that "end" is > the next byte after the memory region. This gives you: > > size = end - start > end = start + size > > Using a different convention here will just confuse people used to the > way it's done everywhere else.
So we should continue using some confusing convention because that is the way that things are? :-\ - Arnaldo -- 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/
