On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 06:03:00PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> For the other points I think you shouldn't really complain (both at
> runtime and in code style as well, please see how clean it is with the
> wait_table_t thing), I made a definitive improvement to your code, the
> only not obvious part is the hashfn but I really cannot see yours
> beating mine because of the total random input, infact it could be the
> other way around due the fact if something there's the probability the
> pages are physically consecutive and I take care of that fine.
I don't know whose definition of clean code this is:
+static inline wait_queue_head_t * wait_table_hashfn(struct page * page, wait_table_t * wait_table)
+{
+#define i (((unsigned long) page)/(sizeof(struct page) & ~ (sizeof(struct page) - 1)))
+#define s(x) ((x)+((x)>>wait_table->shift))
+ return wait_table->head + (s(i) & (wait_table->size-1));
+#undef i
+#undef s
+}
I'm not sure I want to find out.
Bill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:01:07 EST