Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-66553-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240214170157.17530-1-osalvador@suse.de> <20240214170157.17530-3-osalvador@suse.de>
 <CANpmjNPypJM5icG9M5yP5-psSofbA7D35eaKx+E6NyCsHMa=qg@mail.gmail.com> <a310c3cf-049d-4067-b950-f6abf9b5b098@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <a310c3cf-049d-4067-b950-f6abf9b5b098@suse.cz>
From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:33:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CANpmjNOgiqcXx1T=-W6QL6RuYsZSLOdSjGH9iLVJru_3=15Bnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/7] lib/stackdepot: Move stack_record struct
 definition into the header
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>, 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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 10:30, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> 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.

This is already v9. Of course, still need to look at rest of v9 and if
there are major changes needed then a v10 is needed.