From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755067Ab1IJAmx (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Sep 2011 20:42:53 -0400 Received: from out4.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:49344 "EHLO out4.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754217Ab1IJAmw (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Sep 2011 20:42:52 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: 6SGrCaSoD1Esfb4tV66B+jFJa/4BTtPPYH+RCRtLgqSD 1315615369 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:41:38 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Nitin Gupta Cc: Jerome Marchand , Pekka Enberg , Robert Jennings , Linux Driver Project , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] zram: Simplify zram disk resizing interface Message-ID: <20110910004138.GA27110@kroah.com> References: <1315609264-13632-1-git-send-email-ngupta@vflare.org> <1315609264-13632-5-git-send-email-ngupta@vflare.org> <20110909231128.GA24604@kroah.com> <4E6AAB81.2010600@vflare.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E6AAB81.2010600@vflare.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 08:12:49PM -0400, Nitin Gupta wrote: > On 09/09/2011 07:11 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > "simplify" it in what way? > > > > What just got changed, and why, and did it just break any documentation? > > > > > Its simplification in the sense that earlier we had to be pass total RAM > size in bytes when setting zram disksize using zram_set_disksize() > which is not intuitive. The replaced version instead just requires > the new size to be set which seems to make more sense. Then why not mention that? Is there some character limit in the changelog comment section that I don't know about? :) Please, be much more descriptive so we have a chance to know what is going on. > The first message is no longer required since we now set some default > value (25% of RAM) instead of zero. So, if user doesn't provide any > disksize value, we use the default. > > The second message really doesn't belong in a kernel driver. That's more > of a documentation or user commonsense thing. If a user really thinks > that the data to be written is going to be highly compressible, setting > zram to such large value makes some sense and there is little point in > throwing out this big warning in system logs. Again, put this in the changelog... greg k-h