Christoph Lameter writes: > I had the name "zero_page" in V1 and V2 of the patch where it was > separate. Then someone complained about code duplication.
Well, if you duplicated each arch's clear_page implementation in zero_page, then yes, that would be unnecessary code duplication. I would suggest that for architectures where the clear_page implementation can easily be extended, rename it to clear_page_order (or something) and #define clear_page(x) to be clear_page_order(x, 0). For architectures where it can't, leave clear_page as clear_page and define clear_page_order as an inline function that calls clear_page in a loop. > clear_page is called clear_page because it clears one page of *any* order > not just higher orders. zero-order pages are not segregated nor are they > intrisincally better just because they contain more memory ;-). You have missed my point, which was about address constraints, not a distinction between zero-order pages and higher-order pages. Anyway, I remain of the opinion that your naming is inconsistent with the naming of other functions that deal with zero-order and higher-order pages, such as get_free_pages, alloc_pages, free_pages, etc., and that your patch is unnecessarily intrusive. I guess it's up to Andrew to decide which way we go. Paul. - 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/
