On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 17:20 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: >> Having the function name indicate what the function is used >> for makes the code a little easier to read. Furthermore, >> the fault handling code largely consists of do_...._page >> functions. > > I don't much care either way, but I was thinking walken might want to > use something similar to do WSS estimation, in which case the NUMA name > is just as wrong.
Right now my working set estimation only uses A bits, so let's not make that a concern here. I think the _numa names are a bit better than _prot_none, but still a bit confusing. I don't have any great suggestions but I think there should at least be a comment above pte_numa() that explains what the numa ptes are (the comment within the function doesn't qualify as it only explains how the numa ptes are different from the ones in PROT_NONE vmas...) -- Michel "Walken" Lespinasse A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies. -- 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/
