Re: [PATCH] x86: mm: accurate the comments for STEP_SIZE_SHIFT macro

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 03/18/2013 12:13 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> No, it doesn't.  This is C, not elementary school  Now I'm really bothered.
>>
>> The comment doesn't say *why* (PUD_SHIFT-PMD_SHIFT)/2 or any other
>> variant is correct, furthermore I suspect that the +1 is misplaced.
>> However, what is really needed is:
>>
>> 1. Someone needs to explain what the logic should be and why, and
>> 2. replace the macro with a symbolic macro, not with a constant and a
>>    comment explaining, incorrectly, how that value was derived.
> 
> yes, we should find out free_mem_size instead to decide next step size.
> 
> But that will come out page table size estimation problem again.
> 

Sorry, that comment is double nonsense for someone who isn't intimately
familiar with the code, and it sounds like it is just plain wrong.

Instead, try to explain why 5 is the correct value in the current code
and how it is (or should be!) derived.

	-hpa



--
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/