On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:32:36PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:52:41AM +0100, Steve Capper wrote: > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h > ... > > +static inline int pud_large(pud_t pud) > > +{ > > + return !(pud_val(pud) & PUD_TABLE_BIT); > > +} > > I already commented on this - do we really need pud_large() which is > the same as pud_huge()? It's only defined on x86 and can be safely > replaced with pud_huge(). > Thanks, yes, sorry this one slipped through the cracks. I'll update this to use pud_huge. > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ > ... > > +int pmd_huge(pmd_t pmd) > > +{ > > + return !(pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TABLE_BIT); > > +} > > + > > +int pud_huge(pud_t pud) > > +{ > > + return !(pud_val(pud) & PUD_TABLE_BIT); > > +} > > You could even go further and make pud/pmd_huge static inline functions > for slightly better efficiency (needs changing in the linux/hugetlb.h > header). I'll have to have a think about this and a tinker :-). Cheers, -- Steve -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>