On 11/8/23 06:32, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (23/11/08 06:16), Vasily Averin wrote:
>> On 11/8/23 05:49, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>>> On (23/11/06 22:55), Vasily Averin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 'element' and 'handle' are union in struct zram_table_entry.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 8e19d540d107 ("zram: extend zero pages to same element pages")
>>>
>>> Sorry, what exactly does it fix?
>>
>> It removes unneeded call of zram_get_element() and unneeded variable 'value'.
>
> Yes, what the patch does is pretty clear. It doesn't *fix* anything per se.
Ok, I'm sorry for miscommunication.
I'm agree, it is just minor cleanup.
"Fixes:" tag just here was pointed to the patch added this problem.
Perhaps it was better to specify something like "Introduced-by:" tag instead.
>> zram_get_element() == zram_get_handle(), they both access the same field of the same struct zram_table_entry,
>> no need to read it 2nd time.
>> 'value' variable is not required, 'handle' can be used instead.
>>
>> I hope this explain why element/handle union should be removed: it confuses reviewers.
>
> I do not agree with "union should be removed" part.
>
> In this particular case - using handle as the page pattern (element)
> is in fact quite confusing. The visual separation of `handle` and `element`
> is helpful.
It's at your discretion, you know better.
Thank you,
Vasily Averin
