Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 2 Sep 2025 15:33:21 +0200 | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/9] mm, swap: tidy up swap device and cluster info helpers | | From | David Hildenbrand <> |
| |
On 22.08.25 21:20, Kairui Song wrote: > From: Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com> > > swp_swap_info is the most commonly used helper for retrieving swap info. > It has an internal check that may lead to a NULL return value, but > almost none of its caller checks the return value, making the internal > check pointless. In fact, most of these callers already ensured the > entry is valid and never expect a NULL value. > > Tidy this up and shorten the name.
Shorter != better. But yes, "swp_swap" was a mess.
> If the caller can make sure the > swap entry/type is valid and the device is pinned, use the new introduced > swp_info/swp_type_info instead. They have more debug sanity checks and > lower overhead as they are inlined. > > Callers that may expect a NULL value should use > swp_get_info/swp_type_get_info instead.
High-level comments:
1) I hate the "swp" vs. "swap". Is that a valuable distinction or could we just convert it to "swap" as we touch it?
You're converting swap_type_to_swap_info() to swp_type_to_swap_info(), and I am not sure if that is the right direction :)
2) Can we just call it "swap_entry" when we work on a swap entry and "swap_type" when we work on a swap type in the function name?
swp_info() is a rather bad function name.
3) I am not sure about "to" -> "get". "to" is much more readable in that context and consistent.
4) swp_info[] vs. swap_info() gah.
I would just have done:
swap_type_to_info(int type) __swap_type_to_info(int type) swap_entry_to_info(swp_entry_t entry) __swap_entry_to_info(swp_entry_t entry)
__ are the expert functions where we don't expect NULL.
-- Cheers
David / dhildenb
|  |