Re: [PATCH 03/05] mm rationalize __alloc_pages ALLOC_* flag names

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 01:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Paul Jackson wrote:
> > > Rationalize mm/page_alloc.c:__alloc_pages() ALLOC flag names.
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't really see the need for this. The names aren't
> > clearly better, and the downside is that they move away
> > from the terminlogy we've been using in the page allocator
> > for the past few years.
> 
> I thought they were heaps better, actually.
> 
> -#define ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS	0x01 /* don't check watermarks at all */
> -#define ALLOC_HARDER		0x02 /* try to alloc harder */
> -#define ALLOC_HIGH		0x04 /* __GFP_HIGH set */
> +#define ALLOC_DONT_DIP	0x01 	/* don't dip into memory reserves */
> +#define ALLOC_DIP_SOME	0x02 	/* dip into reserves some */
> +#define ALLOC_DIP_ALOT	0x04 	/* dip into reserves further */
> +#define ALLOC_MUSTHAVE	0x08 	/* ignore all constraints */
> 
> very explicit.

maybe. 
however... if names get changed anyway, maybe name them based on intent?

ALLOC_NORMAL  
ALLOC_KERNELTHREAD
ALLOC_VMCAUSED
ALLOC_WOULDDEADLOCK 

or something.. yes these are lame

perhaps both are needed.. bitflags for the implementation, and defines
based on usage that are compounded bitflags..


-
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/