On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:33:32AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 04:48:59PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > Howdy Minchan,
> >
> > Once again, thanks for raising such valuable feedback over here.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:48:24PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > +/* __isolate_lru_page() counterpart for a ballooned page */
> > > > +static bool isolate_balloon_page(struct page *page)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (WARN_ON(!is_balloon_page(page)))
> > > > + return false;
> > >
> > > I am not sure we need this because you alreay check it before calling
> > > isolate_balloon_page. If you really need it, it would be better to
> > > add likely in isolate_balloon_page, too.
> > >
> >
> > This check point was set in place because isolate_balloon_page() was a publicly
> > visible function and while our current usage looks correct it would not hurt to
> > have something like that done -- think of it as an insurance policy, in case
> > someone else, in the future, attempts to use it on any other place outside this
> > specifc context.
> > Despite not seeing it as a dealbreaker for the patch as is, I do agree, however,
> > this snippet can _potentially_ be removed from isolate_balloon_page(), since
> > this function has become static to compaction.c.
>
> Yes. It's not static.
Typo. It's static.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
