On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:04:48 +0100, Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For the purposes of review, have a separate patch for moving isolate_freepages_block to another file that does not alter the function in any way. When the function is updated in a follow-on patch, it'll be far easier to see what has changed.
Will do.
page_isolation.c may also be a better fit than page_alloc.c
Since isolate_freepages_block() is the only user of split_free_page(), would it make sense to move split_free_page() to page_isolation.c as well? I sort of like the idea of making it static and removing from header file.
I confess I didn't read closely because of the mess in page_alloc.c but the intent seems fine.
No worries. I just needed for a quick comment whether I'm headed the right direction. :)
Hopefully there will be a new version of CMA posted that will be easier to review.
I'll try and create the code no latter then on the weekend so hopefully the new version will be sent next week. -- Best regards, _ _ .o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o ..o | Computer Science, Michał “mina86” Nazarewicz (o o) ooo +----<email/xmpp: mpn@xxxxxxxxxx>--------------ooO--(_)--Ooo-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
