Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1589764857-6800-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <1589764857-6800-2-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <20200521003716.GA317575@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CAAmzW4ND=AfXavSbraeWH2Pr-AQ=fTAiJFTBt66MrshMNEWuhA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAmzW4ND=AfXavSbraeWH2Pr-AQ=fTAiJFTBt66MrshMNEWuhA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 May 2020 15:45:03 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4NPvAmJfX0UH5RqFM=kSoV3aw3VOM8c9V-z_y3Qe5ijnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm/page_isolation: prefer the node of the source page
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team@lge.com,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> > >  mm/page_isolation.c | 4 +++-
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
> > > index 2c11a38..7df89bd 100644
> > > --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
> > > +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
> > > @@ -300,5 +300,7 @@ int test_pages_isolated(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn,
> > >
> > >  struct page *alloc_migrate_target(struct page *page, unsigned long private)
> > >  {
> > > -     return new_page_nodemask(page, numa_node_id(), &node_states[N_MEMORY]);
> > > +     int nid = page_to_nid(page);
> > > +
> > > +     return new_page_nodemask(page, nid, &node_states[N_MEMORY]);
> >
> > Why not new_page_nodemask(page, page_to_nid(page), &node_states[N_MEMORY]) ?
> > Still fits into 80 characters.
>
> It's just my preference not directly using function call in argument
> as much as possible.
> If you don't like it, I will change it as you suggested. However,
> since alloc_migrate_target()
> will be removed in following patch, there will be no difference in the end.

Oops... I found that your suggestion exceed 80 character.
I will leave the patch as it is.

Thanks.