On 8/9/24 2:25 AM, Vishal Moola wrote: >>> I'm not a fan of the names above. IMO, naming should follow some >>> semblance of consistency regarding their purpose (or have comments >>> that describe their purpose instead). >>> >>> At a glance zpdesc_set_zspage() and zpdesc_set_first() sound like they >>> are doing similar things, but I don't think they serve similar purposes? >> zpdesc_set_zspage() only used in one place, a helper maynot needed. Let me remove it. >> Same thing for the alloc_zpdesc() and free_zpdesc(), they could be merge into using place. > alloc_zpdesc() and free_zpdesc() are fine as is. The helper functions > will be useful whenever memdescs can be allocated on their own, so its > better to introduce it now. Thanks for suggestion. will recover them in next version, maybe tomorrow if no more comments.
