Re: [PATCH] remove __pte_offset

[Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>]

Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:09:21PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> 
>>For pte_index? Surely they're completely separate things?
>>pte_index returns a virtual address offset into the pte, and
>>pte_to_pfn returns a physical address?
> 
> Sorry, I was only thinking about the type of the index initially, not 
> the type of the data being passed into the macro.  Yes, the macro does 
> take an address, so it should be more like addr_to_pfn_index or somesuch.  
> I still think pte_index isn't clear, though.

While we're on the subject, does anyone else find the p*_offset
functions confusing?

Maybe something like this?
vaddr_to_pgd_entry(mm, address)
virt_to_pgd_entry(mm, address)

-- 
Dave Hansen
haveblue@us.ibm.com

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org">aart@kvack.org</a>