On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Robert Jennings <rcj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There is no need to set the bits in the first- and second-level indices > to indicate a free page when we know that a free page existed at this > level. > > Signed-off-by: Robert Jennings <rcj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Why is it not necessary? I don't know that part of the code well enough to tell if this patch is safe or not. > --- > drivers/staging/zram/xvmalloc.c | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/zram/xvmalloc.c b/drivers/staging/zram/xvmalloc.c > index a507f95..b3622f1 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/zram/xvmalloc.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/zram/xvmalloc.c > @@ -205,6 +205,8 @@ static void insert_block(struct xv_pool *pool, struct page *page, u32 offset, > nextblock->link.prev_page = page; > nextblock->link.prev_offset = offset; > put_ptr_atomic(nextblock, KM_USER1); > + /* If there was a next page then the free bits are set. */ > + return; > } > > __set_bit(slindex % BITS_PER_LONG, &pool->slbitmap[flindex]); > -- > 1.6.0.2 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
