Message-ID: <5064ee08-792f-14f2-6f2d-26e81af8a239@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 18:52:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Change the return value for page isolation
 functions
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org, sj@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        mhocko@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, shakeelb@google.com,
        muchun.song@linux.dev, naoya.horiguchi@nec.com,
        linmiaohe@huawei.com, osalvador@suse.de, mike.kravetz@oracle.com,
        willy@infradead.org, damon@lists.linux.dev,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1676382188.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <cover.1676382188.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 14.02.23 14:59, Baolin Wang wrote:
> Now the page isolation functions did not return a boolean to indicate
> success or not, instead it will return a negative error when failed
> to isolate a page. So below code used in most places seem a boolean
> success/failure thing, which can confuse people whether the isolation
> is successful.
> 
> if (folio_isolate_lru(folio))
>          continue;
> 
> Moreover the page isolation functions only return 0 or -EBUSY, and
> most users did not care about the negative error except for few users,
> thus we can convert all page isolation functions to return a boolean
> value, which can remove the confusion to make code more clear.
> 
> No functional changes intended in this patch series.
> 
> Changes from v1:
>   - Convert all isolation functions to return bool.

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Although it's controversial if

if (!ret)
	ret = -EBUSY;
else
	ret = 0;

is really appealing to the readers eye :)

ret = ret ? 0 : -EBUSY;

It's still confusing.

would be better as

ret = isolated ? 0 : -EBUSY;

IOW, not reusing the "int ret" variable.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb