From:   SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
To:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, 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, david@redhat.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Change the return value for page isolation functions
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 20:26:48 +0000
Message-Id: <20230215202648.92523-1-sj@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <cover.1676424378.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
References: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Baolin,

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 18:39:33 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> 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.

For the series,

Reviewed-by: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>


Thanks,
SJ

[...]