From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD818C11D00 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 21:52:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28107206DB for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 21:51:59 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 28107206DB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 791B26B0005; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:51:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 768C46B0006; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:51:59 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 656626B0007; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:51:59 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0076.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.76]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9C86B0005 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:51:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin14.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B226180AD830 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 21:51:59 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76511853558.14.gate16_4b73a01510a26 X-HE-Tag: gate16_4b73a01510a26 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2899 Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 21:51:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Feb 2020 13:51:56 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,465,1574150400"; d="scan'208";a="383273071" Received: from richard.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.159.54]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2020 13:51:53 -0800 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 05:52:13 +0800 From: Wei Yang To: Baoquan He Cc: Wei Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com, osalvador@suse.de, dan.j.williams@intel.com, mhocko@suse.com, rppt@linux.ibm.com, robin.murphy@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] mm/sparse.c: move subsection_map related codes together Message-ID: <20200220215213.GA14195@richard> Reply-To: Wei Yang References: <20200220043316.19668-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20200220043316.19668-7-bhe@redhat.com> <20200220061832.GE32521@richard> <20200220070420.GD4937@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <20200220071233.GA592@richard> <20200220085559.GE4937@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200220085559.GE4937@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 04:55:59PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: >On 02/20/20 at 03:12pm, Wei Yang wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:04:20PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: >> >On 02/20/20 at 02:18pm, Wei Yang wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 12:33:15PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: >> >> >No functional change. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Those functions are introduced in your previous patches. >> >> >> >> Is it possible to define them close to each other at the very beginning? >> > >> >Thanks for reviewing. >> > >> >Do you mean to discard this patch and keep it as they are in the patch 4/7? >> >If yes, it's fine to me to drop it as you suggested. To me, I prefer to put >> >all subsection map handling codes together. >> > >> >> I mean when you introduce clear_subsection_map() in patch 3, is it possible to >> move close to the definition of fill_subsection_map()? >> >> Since finally you are will to move them together. > >Oh, got it. Yeah, I just put them close to their callers separately. I >think it's also good to put them together as you suggested, but it >doesn't matter much, right? I will consider this and see if I can adjust >it if v3 is needed. Thanks. Yes, doesn't matter much. -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me