On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 12:03 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 01:37:06PM -0700, Chris Li wrote: > > Either way works. It will produce the same machine code. I have a > > slight inclination to just drop swap_free(entry) API so that it > > discourages the caller to do a for loop over swap_free(). > > Then just ad the number of entries parameter to swap_free and do away > with the separate swap_free_nr. swap_free_nr() isn't separate, after this patch, it is the only one left. there won't be swap_free() any more. it seems you want to directly "rename" it to swap_free()?
