Re: [PATCH v10 22/35] shrinker: convert remaining shrinkers to count/scan API

Dave Chinner
2013-06-06T03:41:16Z

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:08:21PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 23:29:51 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> >
> > Convert the remaining couple of random shrinkers in the tree to the
> > new API.
>
> Gee we have a lot of shrinkers.

And a large number of them are busted in some way, too :/

> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> > @@ -4213,13 +4213,14 @@ restart:
> > spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > }
> >
> > -static int mmu_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> > +static long
> > +mmu_shrink_scan(
> > + struct shrinker *shrink,
> > + struct shrink_control *sc)
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/net/sunrpc/auth.c
> > +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth.c
> > -static int
> > -rpcauth_cache_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> > +static long
> > +rpcauth_cache_shrink_scan(
> > + struct shrinker *shrink,
> > + struct shrink_control *sc)
> > +
>
> It is pretty poor form to switch other people's code into this very
> non-standard XFSish coding style. The maintainers are just going to
> have to go wtf and switch it back one day.

My bad. That's left over from when I was originally developing the
the patch set passed a couple more parameters to the shrinkers
pushing every single declaration to well over the line length
limits. I never converted them back as I removed the extra
parameters, because it's far easier to just have delete a line that
delete a variable and reformat the entire function declaration....

> Really, it would be best if you were to go through the entire patchset
> and undo all this.

Sure, that can be done.

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david-FqsqvQoI3Ljby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org