On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:20:32AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 19:09 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > Maybe it'd be cleaner if we didn't need to cast the pmd to pte_t but I > > guess this makes things simpler. > > Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of doing that, either. But, I'm not sure what > the alternatives are. We could basically copy smaps_pte_entry() to > smaps_pmd_entry(), and then try to make pmd variants of all of the pte > functions and macros we call in there. I thought at the smaps_pmd_entry possibility too, but I would expect it to plain duplicate a bit of code just to avoid a single cast, which is why I thought the cast was ok in this case. > I know there's a least a bit of precedent in the hugetlbfs code for > doing things like this, but it's not a _great_ excuse. :) ;) -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>