From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta7.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta7.messagelabs.com [216.82.255.55]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885616B016A for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:46:53 -0400 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH V7 1/4] mm: frontswap: swap data structure changes Message-ID: <20110826144653.GA889@dumpdata.com> References: <20110823145755.GA23174@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <20110825143312.a6fe93d5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <8a95a804-7ba3-416e-9ba5-8da7b9cabba5@default20110826090214.2f7f2cdc.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <24f09c1f-3ff8-4677-a1f7-c3494ced04c1@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <24f09c1f-3ff8-4677-a1f7-c3494ced04c1@default> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dan Magenheimer Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, jeremy@goop.org, hughd@google.com, ngupta@vflare.org, JBeulich@novell.com, Kurt Hackel , npiggin@kernel.dk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, riel@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, matthew@wil.cx, Chris Mason , sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jackdachef@gmail.com, cyclonusj@gmail.com On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 07:15:30AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote: > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [mailto:kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com] > > Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH V7 1/4] mm: frontswap: swap data structure changes > > > > > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [mailto:kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com] > > > > Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH V7 1/4] mm: frontswap: swap data structure changes > > > > > > Hi Kamezawa-san -- > > > > > > Domo arigato for the review and feedback! > > > > > > > Hmm....could you modify mm/swapfile.c and remove 'static' in the same patch ? > > > > > > I separated out this header patch because I thought it would > > > make the key swap data structure changes more visible. Are you > > > saying that it is more confusing? > > > > Yes. I know you add a new header file which is not included but.. > > > > At reviewing patch, I check whether all required changes are done. > > In this case, you turned out the function to be externed but you > > leave the function definition as 'static'. This unbalance confues me. > > > > I always read patches from 1 to END. When I found an incomplete change > > in patch 1, I remember it and need to find missng part from patch 2->End. > > This makes my review confused a little. > > > > In another case, when a patch adds a new file, I check Makefile change. > > Considering dependency, the patch order should be > > > > [patch 1] Documentaion/Config > > [patch 2] Makefile + add new file. > > > > But plesse note: This is my thought. Other guys may have other idea. > > I think that is probably a good approach. I will try to use it > for future patches. But since this frontswap patchset is already > on V7, I hope it is OK if I continue to organize it for V8 the same > as it has been, as it might be confusing to previous reviewers > to change the organization now. Nah, that is what part of the review process is - keep us on our toes. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org