From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261874AbVBUGg2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:36:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261898AbVBUGg2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:36:28 -0500 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:280 "EHLO MTVMIME01.enterprise.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261874AbVBUGgZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:36:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:35:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@goblin.wat.veritas.com To: Nick Piggin cc: Andi Kleen , "David S. Miller" , benh@kernel.crashing.org, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] page table iterators In-Reply-To: <4218840D.6030203@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: References: <4214A1EC.4070102@yahoo.com.au> <4214A437.8050900@yahoo.com.au> <20050217194336.GA8314@wotan.suse.de> <1108680578.5665.14.camel@gaston> <20050217230342.GA3115@wotan.suse.de> <20050217153031.011f873f.davem@davemloft.net> <20050217235719.GB31591@wotan.suse.de> <4218840D.6030203@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Nick Piggin wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > The problem is just that these walker macros when they > > do all the lazy walking stuff will be quite complicated. > > And I don't really want another uaccess.h-like macro mess. > > > > Yes currently they look simple, but that will change. > > But even in that case, it will still be better to have the > extra complexity once in the macro rather than throughout mm/ > > > Open coding is probably the smaller evil. > > And they're really not changed that often. My opinion FWIW: I'm all for regularizing the pagetable loops to work the same way, changing their variables to use the same names, improving their efficiency; but I do like to see what a loop is up to. list_for_each and friends are very widely used, they're fine, and I'm quite glad to have their prefetching hidden away from me; but usually I groan, grin and bear it, each time someone devises a clever new for_each macro concealing half the details of some specialist loop. In a minority? Hugh