On (24/01/30 10:52), Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 09:21:31PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (24/01/30 08:16), Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > > Hey Johannes, > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 08:36:36PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > Cleanups and maintenance items that accumulated while reviewing zswap > > > > patches. Based on akpm/mm-unstable + the UAF fix I sent just now. > > > > > > Patches 1 to 9 LGTM, thanks for the great cleanups! > > > > > > I am less excited about patches 10 to 20 though. Don't get me wrong, I > > > am all of logically ordering the code. However, it feels like in this > > > case, we will introduce unnecessary layers in the git history in a lot > > > > This also can complicate cherry-picking of patches to stable, prod, .etc > > I'm sensitive to that argument, because we run our own kernel at Meta > as well. Well, it was less of an argument and more of a "let's consider that too". > But moves are pretty easy. The code doesn't actually change, just the > line offsets. So patch will mostly work with offset warnings. And if > not, it's easy to fix up and verify. Refactoring and API restructuring > (folios e.g.) make it much harder when it comes to this. If pros of doing it are more significant that cons, then OK. Either way I'm not against the patches.
