[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240705122334.j8mJcj5V@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 14:23:34 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock_t.
On 2024-07-05 14:02:22 [+0200], Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:08 +0200
>
> > On 2024-07-04 13:38:04 [+0200], Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> >>> index 3acd7006ad2cc..036845cd4f25e 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> >>> @@ -57,19 +57,34 @@ static void zram_free_page(struct zram *zram, size_t index);
> >>> static int zram_read_page(struct zram *zram, struct page *page, u32 index,
> >>> struct bio *parent);
> >>>
> >>> +static void zram_meta_init_table_locks(struct zram *zram, size_t num_pages)
> >>> +{
> >>> + size_t index;
> >>> +
> >>> + for (index = 0; index < num_pages; index++)
> >>
> >> Maybe declare @index right here?
> >
> > But why? Declarations at the top followed by code.
>
> I meant
>
> for (size_t index = 0; index < num_pages; index++)
>
> It's allowed and even recommended for a couple years already.
I can't believe this…
>
> Thanks,
> Olek
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists