On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:48:54PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > index c851ff92d5b3..58b98bced299 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/page-flags.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h
> > @@ -207,7 +207,8 @@ static inline int __TestClearPage##uname(struct page *page) { return 0; }
> >
> > struct page; /* forward declaration */
> >
> > -TESTPAGEFLAG(Locked, locked)
> > +#define PageLocked(page) test_bit(PG_locked, &compound_head(page)->flags)
> > +
> > PAGEFLAG(Error, error) TESTCLEARFLAG(Error, error)
>
> Hmmm... Now one of the pageflag functions operates on the head page unlike
> the other pageflag functions that only operate on the flag indicated.
>
> Given that pageflags provide a way to implement checks for head / tail
> pages this seems to be a bad idea.
I agree, I need to take more systematic look on page flags vs. compound
pages. I'll try to come up with something before the summit.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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>