On Mon 07-01-19 20:53:08, Qian Cai wrote: > > > On 1/7/19 1:43 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 04-01-19 15:18:08, Qian Cai wrote: > > [...] > >> Though, I can't see any really benefit of this approach apart from "beautify" > > > > This is not about beautifying! This is about making the code long term > > maintainable. As you can see it is just too easy to break it with the > > current scheme. And that is bad especially when the code is broken > > because of an optimization. > > > > Understood, but the code is now fixed. If there is something fundamentally > broken in the future, it may be a good time then to create a looks like > hundred-line cleanup patch for long-term maintenance at the same time to fix > real bugs. Yeah, so revert = fix and redisign the thing to make the code more robust longterm + allow to catch more allocation. I really fail to see why this has to be repeated several times in this thread. Really. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
