[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190523114950.cugrtqcz5hleczyd@pc636>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 13:49:50 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/vmap: get rid of one single unlink_va() when merge
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:19:11AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2019 17:09:38 +0200 "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > It does not make sense to try to "unlink" the node that is
> > definitely not linked with a list nor tree. On the first
> > merge step VA just points to the previously disconnected
> > busy area.
> >
> > On the second step, check if the node has been merged and do
> > "unlink" if so, because now it points to an object that must
> > be linked.
>
> Again, what is the motivation for this change? Seems to be a bit of a
> code/logic cleanup, no significant runtime effect?
>
It is just about some cleanups. Nothing related to design change
and it behaviors as before.
--
Vlad Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists