linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm,swap: cleanup VMA based swap readahead window calculation

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]

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:23:10 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
 Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
 Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
 Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>,
 Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,swap: cleanup VMA based swap readahead window
 calculation

On 24.04.24 08:30, Huang Ying wrote:
> When VMA based swap readahead is introduced in commit
> ec560175c0b6 ("mm, swap: VMA based swap readahead"), "struct
> vma_swap_readahead" is defined to describe the readahead window.
> Because we wanted to save the PTE entries in the struct at that time.
> But after commit 4f8fcf4ced0b ("mm/swap: swap_vma_readahead() do the
> pte_offset_map()"), we no longer save PTE entries in the struct.  The
> size of the struct becomes so small, that it's better to use the
> fields of the struct directly.  This can simplify the code to improve
> the code readability.  The line number of source code reduces too.
> 
> No functionality change is expected in this patch.

 From a quick scan, you perform quite some unrelated changes that make 
the code harder to review than it should be. Consider separating any 
cleanups from the core change of removing the struct.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb