--On Tuesday, July 09, 2002 05:21:11 PM -0700 Andrew Morton
<akpm@zip.com.au> wrote:

> Seems sane and simple, thanks.
> 
> This bit is icky:
> 
> +       union {
> +               struct pte_chain * _pte_chain;  /* Reverse pte mapping
> pointer.                                          * protected by
> PG_chainlock */ +               pte_t            * _pte_direct;
> +       } _pte_union;
> ...
> +
> +#define        pte__chain      _pte_union._pte_chain
> +#define        pte_direct      _pte_union._pte_direct
> 
> 
> You could instead make it just a void * and have:

I agree that it's icky, at least the #defines.  However, I don't like using
void *, either.  After thinking about it overnight, I think I prefer
exposing the union along the lines of pte.chain and pte.direct.  Attached
is a patch with that change, plus a couple of logic tweaks to fix a small
hole.

Dave

======================================================================
Dave McCracken          IBM Linux Base Kernel Team      1-512-838-3059
dmccr@us.ibm.com                                        T/L   678-3059