[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191122064645.GA11261@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 22:46:45 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, tj@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com,
khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com, willy@...radead.org,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Arun KS <arunks@...eaurora.org>,
Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] mm/lruvec: add irqsave flags into lruvec struct
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:15:01AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> We need a irqflags vaiable to save state when do irqsave action, declare
> it here would make code more clear/clean.
This patch is wrong on multiple levels. Adding a field without the
users is completely pointless. And as a general pattern we never
add the irqsave flags to sturctures. They are an intimate part of the
calling conventions, and storing them in a structure will lead to
subtile bugs.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists