On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 03:50:35PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > 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()? I wanted to use more general word to hide zsmalloc internal but I realized it's really impossible to hide them all. If so, let's use zs_huge_class_size and then let's add big fat comment what the API represents in there. Thanks, Sergey! -- 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>
