On Thu 05-05-11 18:12:12, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > So I think the flag should be used that way. If we ever going to add a
> > new architecture like IA64 which uses both ways of expanding we should
> > make it easier by minimizing the places which have to be examined.
>
> If, yes. Let's just agree to disagree. It looks like I'm preferring
> to think of the ia64 case as exceptional, and I want to be reminded of
> that peculiar case; whereas you are wanting to generalize and make it
> not stand out. Both valid.
Probably a call for Andrew?
Anyway, whatever is the way we go I think that both declaration and
definition should be guarded by the same ifdefs.
> > OK, now, with the cleanup patch, we have expand_stack and
> > expand_stack_{downwards,upwards}. I will repost the patch to Andrew with
> > up and down cases renamed. Does it work for you?
>
> Sounds right.
OK, I will repost the updated patch.
> >> But it's always going to be somewhat confusing and asymmetrical
> >> because of the ia64 register backing store case.
> >
> > How come? We would have expand_stack which is pretty much clear that it
> > is expanding stack in the architecture specific way. And then we would
> > have expand_{upwards,downward} which are clear about way how we expand
> > whatever VMA, right?
>
> Right. I'm preferring to be reminded of the confusion and asymmetry,
> you're preferring to smooth over it.
OK
Thanks
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
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>