[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YZOt7qD6yeSXJgv4@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:11:10 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] mm: Rework swap handling of zap_pte_range
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:51:13AM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 11/15/21 05:57, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 09:49:51PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > Clean the code up by merging the device private/exclusive swap entry handling
> > > with the rest, then we merge the pte clear operation too.
> > >
> > > struct* page is defined in multiple places in the function, move it upward.
> >
> > Is that actually a good thing? There was a time when declaring
>
> Yes. It is a very good thing. Having multiple cases of shadowed variables
> (in this case I'm using programming language terminology, or what I
> remember it as, anyway) provides lots of opportunities to create
> hard-to-spot bugs.
I think you're misremembering. These are shadowed variables:
int a;
int b(void)
{
int a;
if (c) {
int a;
}
}
This is not:
int b(void)
{
if (c) {
int a;
} else {
int a;
}
}
I really wish we could turn on -Wshadow, but we get compilation warnings
from header files right now. Or we did last time I checked.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists