Keir Fraser wrote: > > On 22 Mar 2006, at 14:33, Keir Fraser wrote: > >> Okay, can you suggest a better one? That's the best I could come up >> with that wasn't long winded. > > > How about apply_to_page_range()? > That would be better. >> >>> secondly, I think you confuse our (confusing) terminology: the page >>> that holds pte_ts is not the pte_page, the pte_page is the page that >>> a pte points to >> >> >> What should we call it? Essentially we want to be able to get the >> physical address of a PTE in some cases, and passing struct page >> pointer seemed the best way to be able to derive that. I can rename it >> to something else vaguely plausible if the only problem is the >> semantic clash with Linux's idiomatic use of pte_page. > > > Looks like pmd_page is correct? > Yes... although maybe you could just pass the 'pmd_t *'? That's what a lot of the mm/memory.c code does. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
