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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 EAF18C11D05 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:56:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BB424656 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:56:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="LH7AWsRw" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727036AbgBTI4M (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Feb 2020 03:56:12 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:59032 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726759AbgBTI4M (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Feb 2020 03:56:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1582188970; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AHNF0+BtSxUWfLlE/zC/mUonO4VvK5YNXg2/wPJef2I=; b=LH7AWsRwnKyQOG8JEWlJttd/LhBFh9z9iqCWh/dHnGl3Su5umMeNqZcdLvdII96a+APz4I xifOlKqJOw6w8C0cluj16a2/Q1Pec9J/E2zKV9DdD+LbNnE4VaYakMDNSlTceerB2zMtaV F34/9Xbw3zvrOz5SHkJ20InwsJ3q09I= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-320-g8c2rMgZOQOSCSUVJyMXxw-1; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 03:56:07 -0500 X-MC-Unique: g8c2rMgZOQOSCSUVJyMXxw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46D868010F6; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:56:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-12-32.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.32]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8069790D6; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:56:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:55:59 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Wei Yang Cc: 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: <20200220085559.GE4937@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> References: <20200220043316.19668-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20200220043316.19668-7-bhe@redhat.com> <20200220061832.GE32521@richard> <20200220070420.GD4937@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <20200220071233.GA592@richard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200220071233.GA592@richard> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.