On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > > That just makes me barf, really. I have to go and lookup how TASK_SIZE_MAX > > is defined in order to read that code. TASK_SIZE_MAX as is does not give a > > hint at all that it means TASK_SIZE_MAX of 64 bit tasks. > > > > You just explained me that you want stuff proper for clarity reasons. So > > what's so wrong with adding a helper inline tasksize_64bit() or such? > > I thought about that, but I'll need to redefine it under ifdefs :-/ > I mean, for 32-bit native code. > Hmm, I think, if I use is32bit parameter for __STACK_RND_MASK(), > will it be more readable if I just compare to IA32_PAGE_OFFSET here? > Or does it makes sence to introduce tasksize_32bit()? Yes, having such a helper makes it immediately clear what this is about. IA32_PAGE_OFFSET is not really helpful either. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
