From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx150.postini.com [74.125.245.150]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B9026B0033 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:24:51 +0900 From: Joonsoo Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/20] mm, hugetlb: remove resv_map_put() Message-ID: <20130822072451.GF13415@lge.com> References: <1376040398-11212-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <1376040398-11212-11-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <8761uzgvyn.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8761uzgvyn.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Cc: Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Hugh Dickins , Davidlohr Bueso , David Gibson , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wanpeng Li , Naoya Horiguchi , Hillf Danton On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:19:20PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Joonsoo Kim writes: > > > In following patch, I change vma_resv_map() to return resv_map > > for all case. This patch prepares it by removing resv_map_put() which > > doesn't works properly with following change, because it works only for > > HPAGE_RESV_OWNER's resv_map, not for all resv_maps. > > > > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim > > > > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c > > index 73034dd..869c3e0 100644 > > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c > > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c > > @@ -2212,15 +2212,6 @@ static void hugetlb_vm_op_open(struct vm_area_struct *vma) > > kref_get(&resv->refs); > > } > > > > -static void resv_map_put(struct vm_area_struct *vma) > > -{ > > - struct resv_map *resv = vma_resv_map(vma); > > - > > - if (!resv) > > - return; > > - kref_put(&resv->refs, resv_map_release); > > -} > > Why not have seperate functions to return vma_resv_map for > HPAGE_RESV_OWNER and one for put ? That way we could have something like > > resv_map_hpage_resv_owner_get() > resv_map_hpge_resv_put() Because there is no place to call this function more than once. IMO, in this simple case, open code is better to understand and better to reduce code size. > > Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V Thanks :) -- 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: email@kvack.org