Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Ray Lee
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 1:55 pm

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote:

'Relative map' implies a constant offset. What you have there is just
a map as relmap could be sparse (which, btw, would have been nice to
have in the example).

map_bitmap violates your naming convention, bitmap_map isn't all that
clear, bitmap_remap is taken, and while it is one-to-one and onto, I
think calling it bitmap_bijection would lose everyone except the
mathematicians. bitmap_onto? bitmap_map_onto? bitmap_map_bitmap_onto?

bitmap_read_my_kernel_doc?

Minor suggestion:
+ * and the n-th bit of @relmap is the m-th set bit of @relmap.

Perhaps s/is the/is also the/, so that the reader doesn't try to
second guess if you accidentally wrote @relmap twice instead of one of
them being @orig.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions, Paul Jackson, (Thu Feb 14, 5:35 am)
Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions, KOSAKI Motohiro, (Thu Feb 14, 7:11 am)
Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions, Christoph Lameter, (Thu Feb 14, 12:27 pm)
Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions, Christoph Lameter, (Thu Feb 14, 1:06 pm)
Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions, Ray Lee, (Thu Feb 14, 1:55 pm)
Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions, KOSAKI Motohiro, (Thu Feb 14, 5:24 pm)