[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10878744-8db0-1d2c-e899-7c132d78e153@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:32:48 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] mm/swapfile.c: Replace some #ifdef with
IS_ENABLED()
> @@ -878,6 +877,11 @@ static int swap_alloc_cluster(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t *slot)
> unsigned long offset, i;
> unsigned char *map;
>
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THP_SWAP)) {
> + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + return 0;
> + }
I see you seized the opportunity to keep this code gloriously
unencumbered by pesky comments. This seems like a time when you might
have slipped up and been temped to add a comment or two. Guess not. :)
Seriously, though, does it hurt us to add a comment or two to say
something like:
/*
* Should not even be attempting cluster allocations when
* huge page swap is disabled. Warn and fail the allocation.
*/
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THP_SWAP)) {
VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
return 0;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists