On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 06:40:17AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
quoted text > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 02:23:09PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > IMHO it would be better to simply disable the warning in sparse instead
> > of uglying the code just to work around sparse bogosity. It doesnt' seem
> > to make much sense. A subtraction followed by a shift is not expensive.
>
> What makes you think it's a shift? struct page isn't necessarily a
> power of two in size. The original poster said "allyesconfig" which is
> going to add in KMEMCHECK and WANT_PAGE_DEBUG_FLAGS. I think that makes
> it 76 bytes on x86-32, so sparse is right to warn.
These can be still implemented cheaply. Small constants generally are
The only thing that would be really expensive is division by unknown number.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
unsubscribe notice 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/ Messages in current thread:
Re: [RFC][PATCH] introduce ptr_diff() , Andi Kleen , (Thu Aug 19, 5:58 am)
