[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200220085559.GE4937@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:55:59 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...hat.com, osalvador@...e.de,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, mhocko@...e.com, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
robin.murphy@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] mm/sparse.c: move subsection_map related codes
together
On 02/20/20 at 03:12pm, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:04:20PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> >On 02/20/20 at 02:18pm, Wei Yang wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 12:33:15PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> >> >No functional change.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Those functions are introduced in your previous patches.
> >>
> >> Is it possible to define them close to each other at the very beginning?
> >
> >Thanks for reviewing.
> >
> >Do you mean to discard this patch and keep it as they are in the patch 4/7?
> >If yes, it's fine to me to drop it as you suggested. To me, I prefer to put
> >all subsection map handling codes together.
> >
>
> I mean when you introduce clear_subsection_map() in patch 3, is it possible to
> move close to the definition of fill_subsection_map()?
>
> Since finally you are will to move them together.
Oh, got it. Yeah, I just put them close to their callers separately. I
think it's also good to put them together as you suggested, but it
doesn't matter much, right? I will consider this and see if I can adjust
it if v3 is needed. Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists