On 05/16/2012 07:38 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
> > It is of course ok to reuse the field, but what about we make it a union
> > between "list" and "lru" ?
>
> That is what this patch does. You are commenting on code that was
> removed.
Argh. No it doesnt..... It will be easy to add though. But then you have
two list_head definitions in page struct that just differ in name.
As I said previously, it sounds stupid if you look from the typing
system point of view.
But when I read something like: list_add(&sp->lru, list), something very
special assumptions about list ordering comes to mind. It's something
that should be done for the sake of the readers.
--
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>