[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <uzmauds6u53bauvwcycu4uphsrb4fg7rvm2b5x6uqyukqq4wwp@vhugu2qv3uaa>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 12:08:08 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Yuwen Chen <ywen.chen@...mail.com>, Richard Chang <richardycc@...gle.com>,
Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>, Fengyu Lian <licayy@...look.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/4] zram: introduce writeback bio batching support
On (25/11/14 10:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> [..]
> > > +struct zram_wb_req {
> > > + unsigned long blk_idx;
> > > + struct page *page;
> > > struct zram_pp_slot *pps;
> > > struct bio_vec bio_vec;
> > > struct bio bio;
> > > - int ret = 0, err;
> > > +
> > > + struct list_head entry;
> > > +};
> >
> > How about moving structure definition to the upper part of the C file?
> > Not only readability to put together data types but also better diff
> > for reviewer to know what we changed in this patch.
>
> This still needs to be under #ifdef CONFIG_ZRAM_WRITEBACK so readability
> is not significantly better. Do you still prefer moving it up?
My intention was to keep structs definitions together with the static
functions that use them (which are under big #ifdef CONFIG_ZRAM_WRITEBACK
block). So that CONFIG_ZRAM_WRITEBACK parts stay in one place and are not
scattered across the file.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists