On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:16:36 +0400
Glauber Costa [off-list ref] wrote:

On 05/23/2012 02:46 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

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().

quoted

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@kvack.org.  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@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>