> > Looking at stuff like this, I can't help but think that a: > > #define PageOffline PageUnaccepted > > and some other renaming would be a fine idea. I get that the Offline > bit can be reused, but I'm not sure that the "Offline" *naming* should > be reused. What you're doing here is logically distinct from existing > offlining. Yes, or using a new pagetype bit to make the distinction clearer. Especially the function names like maybe_set_page_offline() et. Al are confusing IMHO. They are all about accepting unaccepted memory ... and should express that. I assume PageOffline() will be set only on the first sub-page of a high-order PageBuddy() page, correct? Then we'll have to monitor all PageOffline() users such that they can actually deal with PageBuddy() pages spanning *multiple* base pages for a PageBuddy() page. For now it's clear that if a page is PageOffline(), it cannot be PageBuddy() and cannot span more than one base page. E.g., fs/proc/kcore.c:read_kcore() assumes that PageOffline() is set on individual base pages. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
