On 09.05.22 15:14, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> refill_swap_slots_cache is always called when cache->nr is 0. And if
> cache->nr != 0, we should return cache->nr instead of 0. So remove
> such buggy and confusing check.
Not sure about the "cache->nr != 0, we should return cache->nr instead
of 0" part, I'd just drop that from the patch description. We'd actually
end up overwriting cache->nr after your change, which doesn't sound
right and also different to what you describe here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/swap_slots.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/swap_slots.c b/mm/swap_slots.c
> index 2f877e6f87d7..2a65a89b5b4d 100644
> --- a/mm/swap_slots.c
> +++ b/mm/swap_slots.c
> @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ void enable_swap_slots_cache(void)
> /* called with swap slot cache's alloc lock held */
> static int refill_swap_slots_cache(struct swap_slots_cache *cache)
> {
> - if (!use_swap_slot_cache || cache->nr)
> + if (!use_swap_slot_cache)
> return 0;
>
> cache->cur = 0;
I feel like if this function would be called with cache->nr, it would be
a BUG. So I'm fine with removing it, but we could also think about
turning it into some sort of WARN/BG to make it clearer that this is
unexpected.
Anyhow,
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
