Re: virt_to_offset()

[David Mosberger]

  Yoshifuji> In article <20030810013041.679ddc4c.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> (at
  Yoshifuji> Sun, 10 Aug 2003 01:30:41 -0700), "David S. Miller"
  Yoshifuji> <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
  >> > BTW, we spread ((long) ptr & ~PAGE_MASK); it seems ugly.  > Why
  >> don't we have vert_to_offset(ptr) or something like this?  >
  >> #define virt_to_offset(ptr) ((unsigned long) (ptr) & ~PAGE_MASK)
  >> > Is this bad idea?

  >> With some name like "virt_to_pageoff()" it sounds like a great
  >> idea.

  Yoshifuji> Okay.  How about this?  (I'm going to do the actual
  Yoshifuji> conversion soon.)

It's a bad choice of name.  X_to_Y() normally implies that X and Y are
basically different representations of the same thing (e.g., a page
pointer vs. a virtual address).  However, virt_to_pageoff() is a
one-way translation, so it's misleading.  In my opinion, it should be
called page_offset() or something like that.

	--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/