Re: 2.6.5-rc2-aa1

[Hugh Dickins]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:07:54AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > 
> > Most people seem to be talking about "pte based rmap" vs
> > "object based rmap".  So far you're the only one who I've
> > seen using "rmap" to mean just "pte based rmap" and not
> > also "object based rmap".
> 
> then I'm the only one and I could have been biased because rmap.c is
> including 99% of code for the pte based rmap, and my objrmap.c is including
> 99% of code for the objrect based _reverse_mappings_, still objrmap.c is
> a more appropriate name for that stuff IMO (especially if somebody else
> is mistaken as I am using the word rmap to mean the current 2.6 code in
> mm/rmap.c).

I agree with Rik and Christoph (I agreed with all of Christoph's points,
but most can be left until later on): mm/rmap.c and include/linux/rmap.h
(the latter a name change from include/linux/rmap-locking.h).

objrmap is the particular implementation found within that file in your
tree, but Rik imagined right from the start that there would be various
implementations:

 * This is kept modular because we may want to experiment
 * with object-based reverse mapping schemes.

(Aaargh, now we can expect someone to propose
CONFIG_PTE_CHAIN_RMAP, CONFIG_ANON_VMA_RMAP, CONFIG_ANONMM_RMAP etc)

Hugh

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/