On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:33:32AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:

Hi Rafael,

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 04:48:59PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:

quoted

Howdy Minchan,

Once again, thanks for raising such valuable feedback over here.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:48:24PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:

quoted

quoted

+/* __isolate_lru_page() counterpart for a ballooned page */
+static bool isolate_balloon_page(struct page *page)
+{
+	if (WARN_ON(!is_balloon_page(page)))
+		return false;

I am not sure we need this because you alreay check it before calling
isolate_balloon_page. If you really need it, it would be better to
add likely in isolate_balloon_page, too.

This check point was set in place because isolate_balloon_page() was a publicly
visible function and while our current usage looks correct it would not hurt to
have something like that done -- think of it as an insurance policy, in case
someone else, in the future, attempts to use it on any other place outside this
specifc context. 
Despite not seeing it as a dealbreaker for the patch as is, I do agree, however,
this snippet can _potentially_ be removed from isolate_balloon_page(), since
this function has become static to compaction.c.

Yes. It's not static.

Typo. It's static.

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>