Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-30222-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 09:48:19 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Cc: Christopher Li <chrisl@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Wei =?utf-8?B?WHXvv7w=?= <weixugc@google.com>,
	Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
	Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@google.com>,
	Suren =?utf-8?B?QmFnaGRhc2FyeWFu77+8?= <surenb@google.com>,
	Brain Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>,
	Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>,
	Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>,
	Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>,
	Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] RFC: zswap tree use xarray instead of RB tree
Message-ID: <20240118144819.GE939255@cmpxchg.org>
References: <20240117-zswap-xarray-v1-0-6daa86c08fae@kernel.org>
 <CAJD7tkbQb5nAQdhHXELQsUWs8KhwnoOZ7C8Eu2o7tCYSKeY9Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANeU7Q=mphnSfiZRwFhqFTy56d2ifa5Pz-aa1h3O1PXUo_cu=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJD7tkaTZz9-rtYab+pvf31dprjMLstnHeXk6HZ_0C-8Np=06A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJD7tkaTZz9-rtYab+pvf31dprjMLstnHeXk6HZ_0C-8Np=06A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:05:15PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > I think it makes the review easier. The code adding and removing does
> > not have much overlap. Combining it to a single patch does not save
> > patch size. Having the assert check would be useful for some bisecting
> > to narrow down which step causing the problem. I am fine with squash
> > it to one patch as well.
> 
> I think having two patches is unnecessarily noisy, and we add some
> debug code in this patch that we remove in the next patch anyway.
> Let's see what others think, but personally I prefer a single patch.

+1