Re: forget_pte()

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

In message <20020601164002.GC10243@holomorphy.com> you write:
> diff -Nru a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> --- a/mm/memory.c	Sat Jun  1 09:35:40 2002
> +++ b/mm/memory.c	Sat Jun  1 09:35:40 2002
> @@ -309,15 +309,12 @@
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * Return indicates whether a page was freed so caller can adjust rss
> + * bug check to be sure pte's are unmapped when no longer used
>   */
> -static inline void forget_pte(pte_t page)
> -{
> -	if (!pte_none(page)) {
> -		printk("forget_pte: old mapping existed!\n");
> -		BUG();
> -	}
> -}
> +#define forget_pte(pte)			\
> +	do {				\
> +		BUG_ON(!pte_none(pte));	\
> +	} while (0)

Hmm... it's only used in two places, and the name is entirely
misleading.  I think it might be neater to replace those two
occurances with:

	/* PTEs must be unmapped */
	BUG_ON(!pte_none(pte));

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.