(2013/11/27 14:37), Baoquan He wrote: > On 11/26/13 at 03:12am, Atsushi Kumagai wrote: >> Hello Baoquan, >> >> On 2013/11/26 11:53:34, kexec <kexec-bounces at lists.infradead.org> wrote: >>> On 11/25/13 at 01:33pm, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote: >>>> (2013/11/25 11:31), Baoquan He wrote: >>>>> Hi HATAYAMA and Atsushi, >>>>> >>>>> I think v2 is better than v1, since update_cyclic_region can be used >>>>> with a more flexible calling. >>>>> >>>>> What's your opinion about this? >>>>> >>>>> On 11/23/13 at 05:29pm, Baoquan He wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for your patch. The bug is caused by my patch set for creating a >>>> whole part of 1st bitmap before entering cyclic process. >>>> >>>> I think v1 is better than v2. The update_cyclic_range() call relevant >>>> to this regression is somewhat special compared to other calls; it is >>>> the almost only call that doesn't need to perform filtering processing. >>>> To fix this bug, please make the patch so as not to affect the other calls, >>>> in order to keep change as small as possible. >>> >>> OK, if you think so. But I still think update_cyclic_region is a little >>> weird, its name doesn't match its functionality, this confuses code >>> reviewers. And it does something unnecessary somewhere. If it's >>> possible, I would rather take out the create_1st_bitmap_cyclic and >>> exclude_unnecessary_pages_cyclic, and call them explicitly where they >>> are really needed. Surely we can make a little change in both of them, >>> E.g add a parameter pfn to them, then we can also judge like >>> update_cyclic_region has done: >>> >>> if (is_cyclic_region(pfn)) >>> return TRUE; >>> >>> If you insist on v1 is a better idea, I will repost based on it, but keep >>> my personal opinion. >> >> I also prefer v1 because the usage of update_cyclic_region_without_exclude() is >> definite and understandable while v2's update_cyclic_region() is complicated. >> >> On the other hand, I agree with your opinion, so could you post a cleanup patch >> separately from v1 patch ? > > Hi Atsushi, > > Yeah, you are right, v1 is better. Then we can wait for HATAYAMA's cleanup > patch. I know you are goint to release v1.5.5. > I don't have a time to make a clean-up patch now, at least within this year. -- Thanks. HATAYAMA, Daisuke
