On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:13:12PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 05/03/2016 07:23 AM, js1304@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> > > > >Currently, copy_page_owner() doesn't copy all the owner information. > >It skips last_migrate_reason because copy_page_owner() is used for > >migration and it will be properly set soon. But, following patch > >will use copy_page_owner() and this skip will cause the problem that > >allocated page has uninitialied last_migrate_reason. To prevent it, > >this patch also copy last_migrate_reason in copy_page_owner(). > > Hmm it's a corner case, but if the "new" page was dumped e.g. due to > a bug during the migration, is the copied migrate reason from the > "old" page actually meaningful? I'd say it might be misleading and > it's simpler to just make sure it's initialized to -1. Hmm... if it is the case, other fields are also misleading. I think that we can tolerate this corner case and keeping function semantic as function name suggests is better practice. Thanks. -- 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>