Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:50:19 -0700
From:   Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, tj@kernel.org, cl@linux.com,
        mawupeng1@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] percpu: some trivial cleanup patches
Message-ID: <ZML0qwKTG5zB4VwL@snowbird>
References: <20230721131800.20003-1-bhe@redhat.com>
 <ZLry5gupx9mp1659@snowbird>
 <ZLtNRsDuN4xEMSMB@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZLtNRsDuN4xEMSMB@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 11:30:14AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 07/21/23 at 02:04pm, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 09:17:57PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > There's a left issue in my mailbox about percpu code at below. When
> > > I rechecked it and considered Dennis's comment, I made an attmept
> > > to fix it with patch 3.
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y407wDMKq5ibE9sc@fedora/T/#u
> > > 
> > > Patch 1 and 2 are trivial clean up patches when reading percpu code.
> > > 
> > > Baoquan He (3):
> > >   mm/percpu.c: remove redundant check
> > >   mm/percpu.c: optimize the code in pcpu_setup_first_chunk() a little
> > >     bit
> > >   mm/percpu.c: print error message too if atomic alloc failed
> > > 
> > >  mm/percpu.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 2.34.1
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks for these. I left a few comments. I think I might have some stuff
> > for v6.6, I'll figure that out in a couple days. If that's so, I can
> > pull 1, probably massage 2 and send that out again, and then I think
> > you'll need to resend 3.
> 
> Sure, thanks for careful reviewing and great suggestion. So I only need
> to send v2 of patch 3, right? Or I should change and send v2 of the
> whold series? I may not get it clear.
> 

Sorry for the delay. I've pulled 1 and 2 (reworded the comment). Can you
please resend patch 3.

Thanks,
Dennis