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;
Date:   Sat, 19 Dec 2020 01:21:07 +0000
From:   Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
To:     Jacob Wen <jian.w.wen@oracle.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: DRY cleanup for do_try_to_free_pages()
Message-ID: <X91Vg1Mg1nPk/Bsx@chrisdown.name>
References: <20201218102217.186836-1-jian.w.wen@oracle.com>
 <20201218105153.GX32193@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <f376b551-9a90-c036-d34b-b32d93107b6c@oracle.com>
 <20201218142717.GA32193@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <63e8a821-a3f6-47a6-f438-b27c32f4a05f@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <63e8a821-a3f6-47a6-f438-b27c32f4a05f@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.0.3 (a51f058f) (2020-12-04)
Precedence: bulk

Jacob Wen writes:
>set_task_reclaim_state() is a function with 3 lines of code of which 2 
>lines contain WARN_ON_ONCE.
>
>I am not comfortable with the current repetition.

Ok, but could you please go into _why_ others should feel that way too? There 
are equally also reasons to err on the side of leaving code as-is -- since we 
know it already works, and this code generally has pretty high inertia -- and 
avoid mutation of code without concrete description of the benefits.