Re: [RFC] SLUB - define OO_ macro instead of hardcoded numbers
From: Cyrill Gorcunov
Date: Wed Oct 22 2008 - 14:56:39 EST
[Christoph Lameter - Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:45:55AM -0700]
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> Looks really good for me (if it worth anything). But Christoph
>> doesn't OO_SHIT inspired by u16 too which means we could use
>> MAX_OBJ_PER_PAGE in form you mentoined but maybe we should define
>> #define OO_SHIFT bits_in(page.objects) to point out why we use
>> 16 not 14, not 18 or whatever? How do you think?
> The choice of the bit size in page.objects is determined by the available
> bytes there. The choice of the OO_SHIFT (nice typo there) is determined
> by the use of a 32bit int that we want to cut into two halves.
Ah... I see. So wouldn't you mind to just mentoin page.objects in comment
like 'since page.objects is u16' instead of bits_in magic? Anyone who
will (if any) changing page structure is to grep the sources and find
this comment and will fix MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE definition.
- Cyrill -
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/