From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f71.google.com (mail-pg0-f71.google.com [74.125.83.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB2D6B039F for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:28:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg0-f71.google.com with SMTP id m1so31697034pgd.13 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com. [192.55.52.93]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b88si917834pli.199.2017.03.29.21.28.20 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:28:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "Huang\, Ying" Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -v7 4/9] mm, THP, swap: Add get_huge_swap_page() References: <20170328053209.25876-1-ying.huang@intel.com> <20170328053209.25876-5-ying.huang@intel.com> <20170329170800.GC31821@cmpxchg.org> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:28:17 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20170329170800.GC31821@cmpxchg.org> (Johannes Weiner's message of "Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:08:00 -0400") Message-ID: <87o9wjs80u.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: "Huang, Ying" , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Hugh Dickins , Shaohua Li , Minchan Kim , Rik van Riel Johannes Weiner writes: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 01:32:04PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> @@ -527,6 +527,23 @@ static inline swp_entry_t get_swap_page(void) >> >> #endif /* CONFIG_SWAP */ >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_THP_SWAP_CLUSTER >> +static inline swp_entry_t get_huge_swap_page(void) >> +{ >> + swp_entry_t entry; >> + >> + if (get_swap_pages(1, &entry, true)) >> + return entry; >> + else >> + return (swp_entry_t) {0}; >> +} >> +#else >> +static inline swp_entry_t get_huge_swap_page(void) >> +{ >> + return (swp_entry_t) {0}; >> +} >> +#endif > > Your introducing a function without a user, making it very hard to > judge whether the API is well-designed for the callers or not. > > I pointed this out as a systemic problem with this patch series in v3, > along with other stuff, but with the way this series is structured I'm > having a hard time seeing whether you implemented my other feedback or > whether your counter arguments to them are justified. > > I cannot review and ack these patches this way. Sorry for inconvenience, I will send a new version to combine the function definition and usage into one patch at least for you to review. But I think we can continue our discussion in the comments your raised so far firstly, what do you think about that? Best Regards, Huang, Ying -- 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