[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YnIYofrw/GGEvc0U@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 07:09:37 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't be stuck to rmap lock on reclaim path
On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 09:30:38PM -0700, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 04:32:13AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 10:03:41AM -0700, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > -void rmap_walk(struct folio *folio, const struct rmap_walk_control *rwc);
> > > -void rmap_walk_locked(struct folio *folio, const struct rmap_walk_control *rwc);
> > > +void rmap_walk(struct folio *folio, struct rmap_walk_control *rwc);
> > > +void rmap_walk_locked(struct folio *folio, struct rmap_walk_control *rwc);
> >
> > I see the build bot already beat me to pointing out why this is wrong,
> > but do you not look at git log to figure out why code was changed to be
> > the way it is now, before you change it back?
>
> This patch added a new field as out param like compact_control so
> the rmap_walk_control is not immutable.
... but we have a user which treats it as if it is.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists