On (02/26/18 14:58), Minchan Kim wrote: [..] > > Right. The changes are pretty trivial, that's why I kept then in > > 2 simple patches. Besides, I didn't want to mix zsmalloc and zram > > changes. > > As I said earlier, it's not thing we usually do, at least, MM. > Anyway, I don't want to insist on it because it depends each > person's point of view what's the better for review, git-bisect. Thanks :) > > > size_t huge_size = _zs_huge_object(pool); > > > .. > > > .. > > > if (comp_size >= huge_size) > > > memcpy(dst, src, 4K); > > > > Yes, can do. My plan was to keep it completely internally to zsmalloc. > > Who knows, it might become smart enough one day to do something more > > than just size comparison. Any reason you used that leading underscore > > Let's do that in future if someone want it. :) OK. > > in _zs_huge_object()? > > > Nope. It's just typo. Let's think better name. > How about using zs_huge_size()? hm, I think `huge_size' on it's own is a bit general and cryptic. zs_huge_object_size() or zs_huge_class_size()? -ss -- 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>
