On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 8:59 PM Barry Song <baohua@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 2:37 AM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I’m not entirely clear on your point. If your proposal is to support the
> case where usage == 1 and nr > 1 only when we don’t require
> CONTINUED, and to issue a warning once we determine that
> CONTINUED is needed, then I’m completely on board with that
> approach.
>
> It seems that your intention is to simply relocate the existing warning
> to the scenario where CONTINUED is actually required, rather than
> maintaining a warning for the case where usage == 1 and nr > 1 at
> all times?
Ohhh yeah we definitely agreed on intentions, but I think I
misunderstood your request :) The code below was an attempt to satisfy
that request...
Please ignore it. I'll submit an actual patch taking into account our
discussions :) Hopefully I won't forget to actually test with thp
swaps this time...
>
> I wasn't actually suggesting a rollback as you posted:
> err = __swap_duplicate(entry, 1, nr);
> if (err == -ENOMEM) {
> /* fallback to non-batched version */
> for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> cur_entry = (swp_entry_t){entry.val + i};
> if (swap_duplicate(cur_entry)) {
> /* rollback */
> while (--i >= 0) {
> cur_entry = (swp_entry_t){entry.val + i};
> swap_free(cur_entry);
> }
>
