Re: [PATCH 5/8] mm/slub: Factor out some common code.

From: George Spelvin
Date: Wed Mar 16 2011 - 18:36:40 EST

> Patches that you would like to propose but don't think are ready for merge
> should have s/PATCH/RFC/ done on the subject line.

You're right; I should have. I blame git-format-patch's defaults, but mea culpa.
(Now I know about the --subject-prefix=RFC option!)

> You deliberately created a helper function to take an unsigned int when
> the actuals being passed in are all unsigned long to trigger a discussion
> on why they are unsigned long?

Er, no, I'm not that Machiavellian.
I deliberately did it because it was obvious that the flags would always
fit into an "unsigned", so I didn't need "unsigned long".

(Actually, I owe you an apology; when writing that e-mail, I remember
thinking "I should go back and clarify that statement", but forgot before
hitting send.)

> unsigned long uses the native word size of the architecture which can
> generate more efficient code; we typically imply that flags have a limited
> size by including leading zeros in their definition for 32-bit
> compatibility:

Um, can you name a (64-bit) architecture on which 32-bit is more
expensive than 64-bit? On x86-64, it's potentially cheaper, and even
the infamous Alpha 21064 has no penalty for 32-bit accesses. SPARC,
MIPS, PPC, Itanium, what else? I don't know about z/ARchitecture,
but given the emphasis on backward compatibility in IBM's mainframes,
it seems hard to imagine.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at