On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 06:29:12PM +0100, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 February 2026 16:38:18 CET Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > > For clarity this can be written as
> > > >
> > > > nr_pages = min_t(unsigned long,
> > > > folio_nr_pages(folio), page_count - i);
> > > > nr_pages = min_t(unsigned long, nr_pages, max_pages);
> > >
> > > Do you think the min_array() is less clear? Let's see what others say.
> >
> > min_array() is clear, it's the ((unsigned long[]) { ... }) that
> > iis nice and fancy but of difficult first read. But, as I said,
> > it can stay, I don't have a strong opinion, maybe I'd have done
> > the same.
>
> Would you be more happy with a locally declared unsigned long table,
> initalized with those 3 values, nr_pages - i and max_segment << PAGE_SHIFT
> statically, folio_nr_pages(folio) once folio is ready, then passed to
> min_array()?
mine was only an idea, I'm fine with what it is now if no one has
anything against it. Perhaps, just a little comment could help
understand why we are evaluating out of three elements (but we
are talking trivial details here :) ).
Thanks,
Andi
