On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 06:39:34PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > Now the folio_isolate_lru() did not return a boolean value to indicate > isolation success or not, however below code checking the return value > can make people think that it was a boolean success/failure thing, which > makes people easy to make mistakes (see the fix patch[1]). > > if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) > continue; > > Thus it's better to check the negative error value expilictly returned by > folio_isolate_lru(), which makes code more clear per Linus's suggestion[2]. > Moreover Matthew suggested we can convert the isolation functions to return > a boolean[3], since most users did not care about the negative error value, > and can also remove the confusing of checking return value. > > So this patch converts the folio_isolate_lru() to return a boolean value, > which means return 'true' to indicate the folio isolation is successful, > and 'false' means a failure to isolation. Meanwhile changing all users' > logic of checking the isolation state. > > No functional changes intended. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230131063206.28820-1-Kuan-Ying.Lee@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiBrY+O-4=2mrbVyxR+hOqfdJ=Do6xoucfJ9_5az01L4Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y+sTFqwMNAjDvxw3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
