On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 15:42 -0700, Ken Chen wrote: > rename hugetlb_zero_setup() to hugetlb_file_setup() to better match > function name convention like shmem implementation. Also add an > argument to the function to indicate whether file setup should reserve > hugetlb page upfront or not. > > Signed-off-by: Ken Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This patch doesn't really look bad at all, but... I am worried that what might seem nice and clean right now will slowly get worse. This implements an interface on top of another interface (char device on top of a filesystem). What is the next hugetlbfs function that will need a boolean switch to handle a character device special case? Am I just worrying too much here? Although my pagetable_operations patches aren't the most popular right now, they do have at least one advantage IMO: they enable side-by-side implementation of the interfaces as opposed to stacking them. Keeping them separate removes the need for if ((vm_flags & VM_HUGETLB) && (is_hugetlbfs_chardev())) checking. -- Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com) IBM Linux Technology Center - 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/