On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:31:50PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:47:45 +0800 > Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > should be ulong, which is compatible with the bitops.h code. > > > Or perhaps we should use a bitfield and let the compiler do the work. > > > > What if we do > > > > u16 mmap_miss; > > u16 ra_flags; > > > > That would get rid of this patch. I'd still like to pack the various > > flags as well as pattern into one single ra_flags, which makes it > > convenient to pass things around (as one single parameter). > > I'm not sure that this will improve things much... > > Again, how does the code look if you use a bitfield and let the > compiler do the worK? It results in much clean code, as you may find in the V2 patches :-) Thanks, Fengguang -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>