2016-04-07 15:07 GMT+01:00 Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx>: > On (04/07/16 13:33), Rui Salvaterra wrote: > [..] >> Hi again, Sergey > > Hello, > >> Thanks for the patch, I'll test it as soon as possible. I agree with >> your second option, usually one selects lz4 when (especially >> decompression) speed is paramount, so it needs all the help it can >> get. > > thanks! > >> Speaking of fishy, the 64-bit detection code also looks suspiciously >> bogus. Some of the identifiers don't even exist anywhere in the kernel >> (__ppc64__, por example, after grepping all .c and .h files). >> Shouldn't we instead check for CONFIG_64BIT or BITS_PER_LONG == 64? > > definitely a good question. personally, I'd prefer to test for > CONFIG_64BIT only, looking at this hairy > > /* Detects 64 bits mode */ > #if (defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__x86_64) || defined(__amd64__) \ > || defined(__ppc64__) || defined(__LP64__)) > > and remove/rewrite a bunch of other stuff. but the thing with cleanups > is that they don't fix anything, while potentially can introduce bugs. > it's more risky to touch the stable code. /* well, removing those 'ghost' > identifiers is sort of OK to me */. but that's just my opinion, I'll > leave it to you and Greg. > > -ss Hi again, Sergey I finally was able to test your patch but, as I suspected, it wasn't enough. However, based on it, I was able to write a (hopefully) correct one, which I'll send soon (tested on ppc64, with no regressions on x86_64). Thanks, Rui -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>