On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:48:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/08/18 14:51), Yu Zhao wrote:
> [..]
> > int zpool_shrink(struct zpool *zpool, unsigned int pages,
> > unsigned int *reclaimed)
> > {
> > - return zpool->driver->shrink(zpool->pool, pages, reclaimed);
> > + return zpool_shrinkable(zpool) ?
> > + zpool->driver->shrink(zpool->pool, pages, reclaimed) : -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -355,6 +356,20 @@ u64 zpool_get_total_size(struct zpool *zpool)
> > return zpool->driver->total_size(zpool->pool);
> > }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * zpool_shrinkable() - Test if zpool is shrinkable
> > + * @pool The zpool to test
> > + *
> > + * Zpool is only shrinkable when it's created with struct
> > + * zpool_ops.evict and its driver implements struct zpool_driver.shrink.
> > + *
> > + * Returns: true if shrinkable; false otherwise.
> > + */
> > +bool zpool_shrinkable(struct zpool *zpool)
> > +{
> > + return zpool->ops && zpool->ops->evict && zpool->driver->shrink;
> > +}
>
> just a side note,
> it might be a bit confusing and maybe there is a better
> name for it. zsmalloc is shrinkable (we register a shrinker
> callback), but not in the way zpool defines it.
Thanks. Do zpool_evictable() and zpool->driver->evict make more sense?
--
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>
