From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88A7A3A1C9 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2025 02:54:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765335248; cv=none; b=Vl0bIsvRnuyyRuVzeypk2qEni9oPl/7dGNWdBxxHv35YNqfaZmMVjQZudLgjasuy/6IAXbWDBAENo7N2Lf7FPz+qT3t7awMTlQZbXljtxHdNFE5XFMH3wAmkLa8/Y6kIMYkBVTFr+BYf5i4jquGeJVnMC7nzDdYv99lWbfie5+I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765335248; c=relaxed/simple; bh=spWxJyy4R94LZwBzdlJfetrxCR+ynZ+CcEoHHb7SaOQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=kiWhVR+6CDeYmi3QBWB1s2YZ93BCfYahGV1rPdN+u+J7x3IoA/SKe5ur3CRXUDyH7pWm7/A3Stgh1OC8EfmzV+rBarYyKGtigzFAO98dc7tQAnJC1qEM032D0FSzAoBcVSHwTGAbRh388iwrbgFWWajaVx42rUXmmihILOgFd5k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=IZjOr8wZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="IZjOr8wZ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A18AC4CEF5; Wed, 10 Dec 2025 02:54:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1765335244; bh=spWxJyy4R94LZwBzdlJfetrxCR+ynZ+CcEoHHb7SaOQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=IZjOr8wZRraf7SUQzi/1ZFnnoiw4O5ED4fQZlTaDRUWA2uT3f+VpoBUp9/Bf703CO JW/u6h0Ic+DMRDiI6hTDxYKu1QQLXlTVF5F20G55mksRYD2iE2Fj9iM19DbODyrXin Fkqd4Kc6gfItZ1OxQXdwns/vh8l6G15A6maowQ0w03DaeKi6tlK9jywpqiOedl3CAi bb5r8TcMMqmUeaT606EU+MqCKZ159oDW1rgh37w49XA3ax35r4HjJyAVvFXccl6dIx pho4HXaq85lEiLBL5qX+/VU0qeLK2bm3a19+hVFP5Kdy4FC3VUjg3ETwNQMd7DxoSE 5vUJ4qzGyLGRg== From: SeongJae Park To: JaeJoon Jung Cc: SeongJae Park , damon@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/damon: modified damon_call_control from static to kmalloc Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 18:54:00 -0800 Message-ID: <20251210025400.51467-1-sj@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: damon@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:20:42 +0900 JaeJoon Jung wrote: > Hello, SeongJae, > > Thank you for your detailed feedback. > My patch has the advantage of removing the use of > the damon_call_control.dealloc_on_cancel variable. Thank you for keeping this conversation for enlightening me, Jaejoon. Could you please elaborate why you think the removal is an advantage? I understand reducing code is good in general. But that's only if the code is unnecessary. dealloc_on_cancel is there for real use case, so I don't clearly see why it is an advantage. Meanwhile I find the feature might look complicated, or not well documented. Specifically, dealloc_on_cancel should be set on only dynamic-allocated damon_call_control object, but that is not well documented on the kernel-doc comments. Are you saying removing it is an advantage because it makes reading code easier? If that's the case, how about improving the documentation? Btw, please consider not doing "top posting" [1]. [1] https://subspace.kernel.org/etiquette.html#do-not-top-post-when-replying Thanks, SJ [...]