[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170316054430.GA464@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:44:30 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
kernel-team@....com, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] mm: remove SWAP_[SUCCESS|AGAIN|FAIL]
On (03/16/17 14:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> "There is no user for it"
>
> I was liar so need to be a honest guy.
ha-ha-ha. I didn't say that :)
[..]
> @@ -1414,7 +1414,7 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> */
> if (unlikely(PageSwapBacked(page) != PageSwapCache(page))) {
> WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> - ret = SWAP_FAIL;
> + ret = false;
> page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
> break;
> }
one thing to notice here is that 'ret = false' and 'ret = SWAP_FAIL'
are not the same and must produce different results. `ret' is bool
and SWAP_FAIL was 2. it's return 1 vs return 0, isn't it? so was
there a bug before?
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists