Christoph Lameter writes:

I had the name "zero_page" in V1 and V2 of the patch where it was
separate. Then someone complained about code duplication.

Well, if you duplicated each arch's clear_page implementation in
zero_page, then yes, that would be unnecessary code duplication.  I
would suggest that for architectures where the clear_page
implementation can easily be extended, rename it to clear_page_order
(or something) and #define clear_page(x) to be clear_page_order(x, 0).
For architectures where it can't, leave clear_page as clear_page and
define clear_page_order as an inline function that calls clear_page in
a loop.

clear_page is called clear_page because it clears one page of *any* order
not just higher orders. zero-order pages are not segregated nor are they
intrisincally better just because they contain more memory ;-).

You have missed my point, which was about address constraints, not a
distinction between zero-order pages and higher-order pages.

Anyway, I remain of the opinion that your naming is inconsistent with
the naming of other functions that deal with zero-order and
higher-order pages, such as get_free_pages, alloc_pages, free_pages,
etc., and that your patch is unnecessarily intrusive.  I guess it's up
to Andrew to decide which way we go.

Paul.
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>