Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:27:43 +0900 | | From | Magnus Damm <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] Swap migration V3: LRU operations |
| |
On 10/21/05, Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 15:59 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > +/* > > + * Isolate one page from the LRU lists. > > + * > > + * - zone->lru_lock must be held > > + * > > + * Result: > > + * 0 = page not on LRU list > > + * 1 = page removed from LRU list > > + * -1 = page is being freed elsewhere. > > + */ > > Can these return values please get some real names? I just hate when > things have more than just fail and success as return codes. > > It makes much more sense to have something like: > > if (ret == ISOLATION_IMPOSSIBLE) {
Absolutely. But this involves figuring out nice names that everyone likes and that does not pollute the name space too much. Any suggestions?
> How about > > +static inline int > > +__isolate_lru_page(struct zone *zone, struct page *page) > > +{ > int ret = 0; > > if (!TestClearPageLRU(page)) > return ret; > > Then, the rest of the thing doesn't need to be indented.
Good idea.
> > +static inline void > > +__putback_lru_page(struct zone *zone, struct page *page) > > +{ > > __put_back_lru_page? > > BTW, it would probably be nice to say where these patches came from > before Magnus. :)
Uh? Yesterday I broke out code from isolate_lru_pages() and shrink_cache() and emailed Christoph privately. Do you have similar code in your tree?
/ magnus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |