On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:49:42 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Because there's no reason to believe that '9' is in any way a worse > random number than something page-shift-related, is there? 9 is much better than PAGE_SHIFT. PAGE_SIZE can vary by a factor of 16, depending on config. Everyone thinks 4k, and tests only for that. There's potential for very large performance and behavior changes when their code gets run on a 64k PAGE_SIZE machine. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
