[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <88f19102-9830-1ed0-1f46-56e11316ca09@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:21:08 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
kexec-ml <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>, pv-drivers@...are.com,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 8/8] PM / Hibernate: exclude all PageOffline() pages
On 21.11.18 12:35, William Kucharski wrote:
> If you are adding PageOffline(page) to the condition list of the already existing if in
> saveable_highmem_page(), why explicitly add it as a separate statement in saveable_page()?
>
> It would seem more consistent to make the second check:
>
> - if (swsusp_page_is_forbidden(page) || swsusp_page_is_free(page))
> + if (swsusp_page_is_forbidden(page) || swsusp_page_is_free(page) ||
> + PageOffline(page))
>
> instead.
>
> It's admittedly a nit but it just seems cleaner to either do that or, if your intention
> was to separate the Page checks from the swsusp checks, to break the calls to
> PageReserved() and PageOffline() into their own check in saveable_highmem_page().
I'll split PageReserved() and PageOffline() off from the swsusp checks,
thanks for your comment!
>
> Thanks!
> -- Bill
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists