Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-66702-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <a5242c82-8373-44ee-b1af-ba98de5075f4@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:43:16 +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
Content-Language: en-US
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
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>
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>
 <CANpmjNOgiqcXx1T=-W6QL6RuYsZSLOdSjGH9iLVJru_3=15Bnw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNOgiqcXx1T=-W6QL6RuYsZSLOdSjGH9iLVJru_3=15Bnw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2/15/24 10:33, Marco Elver wrote:
> 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.

Ah sorry I misunderstood you completely. What you meant v10 isn't needed for
the missing "." and I thought you were saying v9 already wasn't needed (for
this particular patch).