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: <1590561903-13186-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <1590561903-13186-9-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <20200609140418.GJ22623@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20200609140418.GJ22623@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:45:03 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4NxY_wW165DPhyH+4iSKba+bDUc0H+9qN4VHxmPJKq_VA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/12] mm/migrate: change the interface of the
 migration target alloc/free functions
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
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>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2020=EB=85=84 6=EC=9B=94 9=EC=9D=BC (=ED=99=94) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 11:04, M=
ichal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> On Wed 27-05-20 15:44:59, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> >
> > To prepare unifying duplicated functions in following patches, this pat=
ch
> > changes the interface of the migration target alloc/free functions.
> > Functions now use struct alloc_control as an argument.
>
> It also pulls private argument into alloc_control and keeps it that way.
> Wouldn't it be better to use explicit types and names in a union? Each
> allocation callback has to understant the meaning anyway. I would
> consider the resulting code cleaner that way. What do you think?

Your suggestion sounds reasonable. Thanks.

My plan is that, as Vlastimil suggested, I will keep the private argument i=
n
migration callback and use the appropriate private argument by the
allocation caller. There will be no private field on alloc_control.

Thanks.