linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] RFC: zswap tree use xarray instead of RB tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240118144819.GE939255@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 09:48:19 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Christopher Li <chrisl@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>,
	Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@...gle.com>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
	Brain Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
	Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>,
	Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com>,
	Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>,
	Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] RFC: zswap tree use xarray instead of RB tree

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:05:15PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > I think it makes the review easier. The code adding and removing does
> > not have much overlap. Combining it to a single patch does not save
> > patch size. Having the assert check would be useful for some bisecting
> > to narrow down which step causing the problem. I am fine with squash
> > it to one patch as well.
> 
> I think having two patches is unnecessarily noisy, and we add some
> debug code in this patch that we remove in the next patch anyway.
> Let's see what others think, but personally I prefer a single patch.

+1