On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:16:36 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/23/2012 02:46 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Here, we're open-coding kinda-test_bit(). Why do that? These flags are > > modified with set_bit() and friends, so we should read them with the > > matching test_bit()? > > My reasoning was to be as cheap as possible, as you noted yourself two > paragraphs below. These aren't on any fast path, are they? Plus: you failed in that objective! The C compiler's internal scalar->bool conversion makes these functions no more efficient than test_bit(). > > So here are suggested changes from*some* of the above discussion. > > Please consider, incorporate, retest and send us a v7? > > How do you want me to do it? Should I add your patch ontop of mine, > and then another one that tweaks whatever else is left, or should I just > merge those changes into the patches I have? A brand new patch, I guess. I can sort out the what-did-he-change view at this end. -- 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>