Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-66543-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <a310c3cf-049d-4067-b950-f6abf9b5b098@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:30:23 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/7] lib/stackdepot: Move stack_record struct
 definition into the header
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
 Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
 Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
References: <20240214170157.17530-1-osalvador@suse.de>
 <20240214170157.17530-3-osalvador@suse.de>
 <CANpmjNPypJM5icG9M5yP5-psSofbA7D35eaKx+E6NyCsHMa=qg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNPypJM5icG9M5yP5-psSofbA7D35eaKx+E6NyCsHMa=qg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2/15/24 09:16, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 18:00, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>> In order to move the heavy lifting into page_owner code, this one
>> needs to have access to the stack_record structure, which right now
>> sits in lib/stackdepot.c.
>> Move it to the stackdepot.h header so page_owner can access
>> stack_record's struct fields.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
>> Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>> ---

>>  #define DEPOT_POOLS_CAP 8192
>> -/* The pool_index is offset by 1 so the first record does not have a 0 handle. */
>> +/* The pool_index is offset by 1 so the first record does not have a 0 handle */
> 
> Why this comment change? We lost the '.' -- for future reference, it'd
> be good to ensure unnecessary changes don't creep into the diff. This
> is just nitpicking, 

Agree with this part.

> and I've already reviewed this change, so no need
> to send a v+1.

But confused by this remark. There is a number of nontrivial changes in the
series from v8, and IIRC v8 was dropped from mm/ meanwhile, so a v+1 of the
whole series is expected and not fixups. Which means including patches that
were already reviewed. That's the usual process.