From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761582AbZE1I2c (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 04:28:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754772AbZE1I2S (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 04:28:18 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:50319 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754411AbZE1I2R (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 04:28:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:28:18 +0200 From: Nick Piggin To: Andi Kleen Cc: Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, fengguang.wu@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] [9/16] HWPOISON: Use bitmask/action code for try_to_unmap behaviour Message-ID: <20090528082818.GH6920@wotan.suse.de> References: <200905271012.668777061@firstfloor.org> <20090527201235.9475E1D0292@basil.firstfloor.org> <20090528072703.GF6920@wotan.suse.de> <20090528080319.GA1065@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090528080319.GA1065@one.firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:03:19AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:27:03AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Not a bad idea, but I would prefer to have a set of flags which tell > > try_to_unmap what to do, and then combine them with #defines for > > callers. Like gfp flags. > > That's exactly what the patch does? There are a set of "actions" which is what the callers are, then a set of modifiers. Just make it all modifiers and the callers can use things that are | together. > It just has actions and flags because the actions can be contradictory. > > > And just use regular bitops rather than this TTU_ACTION macro. > > TTU_ACTION does mask against multiple bits. None of the regular > bitops do that. &, | ?