On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:19:58AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Mel, other than this nit are you happy with these changes now? > Pretty much but I also want to test the series myself to be sure I haven't missed something in review. > > > It adds another header dependency which is bad but moving hugetlb stuff > > > into mm.h seems bad too. > > > > I have another choice to move the definition of is_vm_hugetlb_page() into > > mm/hugetlb.c and introduce declaration of this function to pagemap.h, > > but this needed a bit ugly #ifdefs and I didn't like it. > > If putting hugetlb code in mm.h is worse, I'll take the second choice > > in the next post. > > You could always create a new include file hugetlb-inlines.h > That would be another option. It'd need to be figured out what should move from hugetlb.h to hugetlb-inlines.h in the future but ultimately it would still be tidier than moving hugetlb stuff to mm.h (at least to me). -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>