On Wednesday 20 September 2006 18:44, Rohit Seth wrote: > On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:27 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Rohit Seth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > */ > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINERS > > > + struct container_struct *ctn; /* Pointer to container, may be NULL */ > > > +#endif > > > > I still don't think it's a good idea to add a pointer to struct page for > > this. > > I thought last time you supported adding a pointer to struct page (when > you mentioned next gen slab will also consume page->mapping).
I didn't. Alternative was a separate data structure. > which one...I think the fields in page structure are already getting > doubly used. There are lots of different cases. At least for anonymous memory ->mapping should be free. Perhaps that could be used for anonymous memory and a separate data structure for the important others. slab should have at least one field free too, although it might be a different one (iirc Christoph's rewrite uses more than the current slab, but it would surprise me if he needed all) > > BTW your patchkit seems to be also in wrong order in that when 02 is applied > > it won't compile. > > Not sure if I understood that. I've myself tested these patches on > 2.6.18-rc6-mm2 kernel and they apply just fine. Are you just trying to > apply 02....if so then that wouldn't suffice. I meant assuming the patchkit was applied you would break binary search inbetween because not each piece compiles on its own. -Andi ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
