You might also try to use valid, plain ISO C99 instead of perverted
gcc extensions which only cause a lot of trouble in the long run.
Ced
On 26 September 2016 at 23:28, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> From: linus...@gmail.com [mailto:linus...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Linus
> Torvalds
>> On Sun, Sep 25,
From: linus...@gmail.com [mailto:linus...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Linus Torvalds
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >It gets rid of
> > the ad-hoc arithmetic in radix_tree_descend(), and just makes all that
> > be inside the is_sibling_entry() logic instead. Whic
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>It gets rid of
> the ad-hoc arithmetic in radix_tree_descend(), and just makes all that
> be inside the is_sibling_entry() logic instead. Which got renamed and
> made to actually return the main sibling.
Sadly, it looks like gcc gen
LGTM, except that #define is_sibling_entry should be IS_SIBLING_ENTRY
Ced
On 25 September 2016 at 21:04, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> The more I look at that particular piece of code, the less I like it. It's
>> buggy shit. It needs to
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> The more I look at that particular piece of code, the less I like it. It's
> buggy shit. It needs to be rewritten entirely too actually check for sibling
> entries, not that ad-hoc arithmetic crap.
Here's my attempt at cleaning the mess
On 25 September 2016 at 02:18, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Cedric Blancher
> wrote:
>>>
>>> void *entry = parent->slots[offset];
>>> int siboff = entry - parent->slots;
>>
>> If entry is a pointer to void, how can you do pointer arithmetic with it?
>
>
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Cedric Blancher
wrote:
>>
>> void *entry = parent->slots[offset];
>> int siboff = entry - parent->slots;
>
> If entry is a pointer to void, how can you do pointer arithmetic with it?
It's actually void **.
(That said, gcc has an extension that con
On 22 September 2016 at 20:53, Matthew Wilcox
wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox
>
> When compiling the radix tree with -O2, GCC thinks it can optimise:
>
> void *entry = parent->slots[offset];
> int siboff = entry - parent->slots;
If entry is a pointer to void, how can you do pointer
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
wrote:
>
> Well, my ext4-with-huge-pages patchset[1] uses multi-order entries.
> It also converts shmem-with-huge-pages and hugetlb to them.
Ok, so that code actually has a chance of being used. I guess we'll
not remove it. But I *would* like th
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 01:21:36PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Matthew Wilcox
> wrote:
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_RADIX_TREE_MULTIORDER
> > if (radix_tree_is_internal_node(entry)) {
> > - unsigned long siboff = get_slot_offset(parent, entry);
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> That said, if this code isn't even used, as Konstantin says (THP
> selects it - doesn't THP use it?), then the fix really should be to
> just remove the odd code instead of adding to it.
>
> Looking around for uses that set "order" to anyt
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_RADIX_TREE_MULTIORDER
> if (radix_tree_is_internal_node(entry)) {
> - unsigned long siboff = get_slot_offset(parent, entry);
> + unsigned long siboff = get_slot_offset(parent,
> +
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Matthew Wilcox
wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox
>
> When compiling the radix tree with -O2, GCC thinks it can optimise:
>
> void *entry = parent->slots[offset];
> int siboff = entry - parent->slots;
> void *slot = parent->slots + siboff;
>
> i
From: linus...@gmail.com [mailto:linus...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Linus Torvalds
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Matthew Wilcox
> wrote:
> >
> > Change the test suite to compile with -O2, and
> > fix the optimisation problem by passing 'entry' through entry_to_node()
> > so gcc knows
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Matthew Wilcox
wrote:
>
> Change the test suite to compile with -O2, and
> fix the optimisation problem by passing 'entry' through entry_to_node()
> so gcc knows this isn't a plain pointer.
Ugh. I really don't like this patch very much.
Wouldn't it be
15 matches
Mail list logo
