[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240701235210.5c187c85aa225292d034cafc@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 23:52:10 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Barry Song
<v-songbaohua@...o.com>, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, Nhat Pham
<nphamcs@...il.com>, Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>, Chris Li
<chrisl@...nel.org>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Johannes Weiner
<hannes@...xchg.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: zswap: fix zswap_never_enabled() for
CONFIG_ZSWAP==N
On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 11:22:31 +1200 Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
>
> If CONFIG_ZSWAP is set to N, it means zswap cannot be enabled.
> zswap_never_enabled() should return true.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/zswap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/zswap.h
> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static inline bool zswap_is_enabled(void)
>
> static inline bool zswap_never_enabled(void)
> {
> - return false;
> + return true;
> }
Well, that code was as wrong as it's possible to get.
But what effect does this have? Seems "not much"? Perhaps we'll
attempt a zswap_load() which later fails for other reasons?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists