On 2022/12/26 16:43, HAGIO KAZUHITO(萩尾 一仁) wrote: > On 2022/12/26 16:08, lijiang wrote: >>> Isn't this better? If no NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE, there is no need to >>> search for NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE. >>> >>> >> Originally, I had the same idea as you. But later, I noticed that there >> was too much duplication of code. So, eventually I used the current fix. >> >> But anyway, if you would prefer the following change, It's also good to me. > > ok, it doesn't look too redundant to me :) and the following > corresponds to the kernel change logically and can avoid an > unnecessary call on 5.9 and later. > > will change and merge later. Applied with that change. https://github.com/crash-utility/crash/commit/41d4b85ea50efc733df65ec8421a74be10e47987 Thanks, Kazu -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility Contribution Guidelines: https://github.com/crash-utility/crash/wiki
