On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 03:25:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:37:57 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 09:36:18PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > The compaction_suitable() will never return values other than COMPACT_SUCCESS, > > > COMPACT_SKIPPED and COMPACT_CONTINUE, so after validation of COMPACT_SUCCESS > > > and COMPACT_SKIPPED, we will never hit other unexpected case. Thus remove > > > the redundant VM_BUG_ON() validation for the return values of compaction_suitable(). > > > > I don't understand why we'd remove this check. > > Well, just from code inspection it serves no purpose. > > Such an assertion might be useful during early code development, but I > think we can consider compaction_suitable() to adequately debugged by > now? What if compaction_suitable() is modified to return another value? This seems like a relatively innocuous check.
