Hi Mel,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The API looks fragile and this patch isn't exactly making it any
>> better. Why don't we make compaction_suitable() return something other
>> than COMPACT_SKIPPED for !CONFIG_COMPACTION case?
>
> Returning COMPACT_PARTIAL or COMPACT_CONTINUE would confuse the check in
> should_continue_reclaim. A fourth return type could be added but an
> obvious name does not spring to mind that would end up being similar to
> just adding a CONFIG_COMPACTION check.
How about COMPACT_DISABLED?
The current API just doesn't make sense from practical point of view.
Anyone calling compaction_suitable() needs to do the COMPAT_BUILD
check first which is a non-obvious and error-prone API.
Pekka
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>