On 2/15/24 10:33, Marco Elver wrote: > 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. Ah sorry I misunderstood you completely. What you meant v10 isn't needed for the missing "." and I thought you were saying v9 already wasn't needed (for this particular patch).
