Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751302AbZI1Fe7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:34:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750728AbZI1Fe6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:34:58 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:38045 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750721AbZI1Fe6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:34:58 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:32:46 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Nigel Cunningham Cc: Wu Fengguang , LKML , "linux-mm@kvack.org" Subject: Re: No more bits in vm_area_struct's vm_flags. Message-Id: <20090928143246.ffed3413.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <4AC04800.70708@crca.org.au> References: <4AB9A0D6.1090004@crca.org.au> <20090924100518.78df6b93.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4ABC80B0.5010100@crca.org.au> <20090925174009.79778649.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4AC0234F.2080808@crca.org.au> <20090928120450.c2d8a4e2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090928033624.GA11191@localhost> <20090928125705.6656e8c5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4AC03D9C.3020907@crca.org.au> <20090928135315.083aca18.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4AC04800.70708@crca.org.au> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 960 Lines: 31 On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:22:08 +1000 Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > Seems good to me. > > > > Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > But > >> + if (vma->vm_hints) > >> + return 0; > >> return 1; > > > > Maybe adding a comment (or more detailed patch description) is necessary. > > Thinking about this some more, I think we should also be looking at whether the new hints are non zero. Perhaps I should just add the new value to the > function parameters and be done with it. > No objections from me. plz do. I said option (1) just because patch size will be big to unexpected. Thank you for your effort. Regards, -Kame -- 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/