> -----Original Message----- > From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 7:11 AM > To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Sridhar, Kanchana P <kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx>; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx; nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx; > chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx; usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx; > shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx; ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx; Huang, Ying > <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>; 21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > Zou, Nanhai <nanhai.zou@xxxxxxxxx>; Feghali, Wajdi K > <wajdi.k.feghali@xxxxxxxxx>; Gopal, Vinodh <vinodh.gopal@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/8] mm: zswap: Refactor code to delete stored > offsets in case of errors. > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 05:43:22PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > What I meant is "zswap_tree_delete(struct xarray *tree, pgoff_t > > offset)", and loop and call this in zswap_store(). This would be > > consistent on looping and calling zswap_store_page(). > > > > But we can keep the helper as-is actually and just rename it to > > zswap_tree_delete() and move the loop inside. No strong preference. > > Both helpers seem unnecesary. > > zswap_tree_store() is not called in a loop directly. It's called from > zswap_store_page(), which is essentially what zswap_store() is now, > and that was fine with the open-coded insert. > > zswap_tree_delete() just hides what's going on. zswap_store() has the > for-loop to store the subpages, so it makes sense it has the for loop > for unwinding on rejection as well. This makes it easier on the reader > to match up attempt and unwind. > > Please just drop both. Ok, sounds good.
