To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>
cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, torvalds@transmeta.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PAG support, try #2 
In-Reply-To: <20030514114953.GS29534@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> 
User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.4 (Hosorogi) FLIM/1.14.4
 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Kashiharajing=FE-mae?=) APEL/10.4 Emacs/21.2
 (i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:03:10 +0100
Message-ID: <31039.1052913790@warthog.warthog>
From: David Howells <dhowells@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 921
Lines: 25


> > +typedef __kernel_pag_t		pag_t;
> 
> > +static pag_t vfs_pag_next = 1;
> 
> > +	vfspag->pag = vfs_pag_next++;
> > +	if (vfspag->pag < 1)
> > +		vfspag->pag = 1;
> 
> Is there a reason pag_t isn't an unsigned int?  Seems to me you'll have
> 2^31 good times followed by 2^31 bad times.  Also, isn't signed overflow
> one of these undefined things?  I wouldn't mention it except that gcc
> seem to be more and more fond of obeying the letter of the standard
> rather than doing useful stuff.

I made it the same as pid_t. However, -ve PIDs can have special meanings which
aren't applicable to PAGs, so I suppose it ought to be unsigned. Time to
change it again. Sigh.

David
-
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/