From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f71.google.com (mail-pl0-f71.google.com [209.85.160.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C4116B0007 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 01:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pl0-f71.google.com with SMTP id x6so7210042plr.7 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:50:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id b73-v6sor2541161pli.109.2018.02.25.22.50.40 for (Google Transport Security); Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:50:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:50:35 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] zsmalloc: introduce zs_huge_object() function Message-ID: <20180226065035.GD12539@jagdpanzerIV> References: <20180210082321.17798-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <20180214055747.8420-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <20180220012429.GA186771@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com> <20180226054927.GA12539@jagdpanzerIV> <20180226055804.GD112402@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180226055804.GD112402@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Minchan Kim Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrew Morton , Mike Rapoport , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Sergey Senozhatsky On (02/26/18 14:58), Minchan Kim wrote: [..] > > Right. The changes are pretty trivial, that's why I kept then in > > 2 simple patches. Besides, I didn't want to mix zsmalloc and zram > > changes. > > As I said earlier, it's not thing we usually do, at least, MM. > Anyway, I don't want to insist on it because it depends each > person's point of view what's the better for review, git-bisect. Thanks :) > > > size_t huge_size = _zs_huge_object(pool); > > > .. > > > .. > > > if (comp_size >= huge_size) > > > memcpy(dst, src, 4K); > > > > Yes, can do. My plan was to keep it completely internally to zsmalloc. > > Who knows, it might become smart enough one day to do something more > > than just size comparison. Any reason you used that leading underscore > > Let's do that in future if someone want it. :) OK. > > in _zs_huge_object()? > > > Nope. It's just typo. Let's think better name. > How about using zs_huge_size()? hm, I think `huge_size' on it's own is a bit general and cryptic. zs_huge_object_size() or zs_huge_class_size()? -ss -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org