On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 10:30, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2/15/24 09:16, Marco Elver wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 18:00, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> In order to move the heavy lifting into page_owner code, this one > >> needs to have access to the stack_record structure, which right now > >> sits in lib/stackdepot.c. > >> Move it to the stackdepot.h header so page_owner can access > >> stack_record's struct fields. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > >> --- > > >> #define DEPOT_POOLS_CAP 8192 > >> -/* The pool_index is offset by 1 so the first record does not have a 0 handle. */ > >> +/* The pool_index is offset by 1 so the first record does not have a 0 handle */ > > > > Why this comment change? We lost the '.' -- for future reference, it'd > > be good to ensure unnecessary changes don't creep into the diff. This > > is just nitpicking, > > Agree with this part. > > > and I've already reviewed this change, so no need > > to send a v+1. > > But confused by this remark. There is a number of nontrivial changes in the > series from v8, and IIRC v8 was dropped from mm/ meanwhile, so a v+1 of the > whole series is expected and not fixups. Which means including patches that > were already reviewed. That's the usual process. This is already v9. Of course, still need to look at rest of v9 and if there are major changes needed then a v10 is needed.
