Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 01:32:04PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> @@ -527,6 +527,23 @@ static inline swp_entry_t get_swap_page(void)
>>
>> #endif /* CONFIG_SWAP */
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_THP_SWAP_CLUSTER
>> +static inline swp_entry_t get_huge_swap_page(void)
>> +{
>> + swp_entry_t entry;
>> +
>> + if (get_swap_pages(1, &entry, true))
>> + return entry;
>> + else
>> + return (swp_entry_t) {0};
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +static inline swp_entry_t get_huge_swap_page(void)
>> +{
>> + return (swp_entry_t) {0};
>> +}
>> +#endif
>
> Your introducing a function without a user, making it very hard to
> judge whether the API is well-designed for the callers or not.
>
> I pointed this out as a systemic problem with this patch series in v3,
> along with other stuff, but with the way this series is structured I'm
> having a hard time seeing whether you implemented my other feedback or
> whether your counter arguments to them are justified.
>
> I cannot review and ack these patches this way.
Sorry for inconvenience, I will send a new version to combine the
function definition and usage into one patch at least for you to
review. But I think we can continue our discussion in the comments your
raised so far firstly, what do you think about that?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
--
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>
