Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751361AbdDADcm (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 23:32:42 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:11980 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751050AbdDADcl (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 23:32:41 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,255,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="81617631" From: "Huang\, Ying" To: Johannes Weiner Cc: "Huang\, Ying" , Andrew Morton , , , Andrea Arcangeli , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Hugh Dickins , Shaohua Li , Minchan Kim , Rik van Riel 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> <87o9wjs80u.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <20170331152418.GA9410@cmpxchg.org> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 11:32:38 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20170331152418.GA9410@cmpxchg.org> (Johannes Weiner's message of "Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:24:18 -0400") Message-ID: <87lgrkreeh.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2092 Lines: 58 Johannes Weiner writes: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:28:17PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> 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. > > We tried this before. I reviewed the self-contained patch and you > incorporated the feedback into the split-out structure that made it > impossible for me to verify the updates. > > I'm not sure why you insist on preserving this series format. It's not > good for review, and it's not good for merging and git history. I had thought some reviewers would prefer the original series format. But I will use your suggested format in the future, unless more reviewers prefer the original format. Best Regards, Huang, Ying >> But I think we can continue our discussion in the comments your >> raised so far firstly, what do you think about that? > > Yeah, let's finish the discussions before -v8.