Dave Hansen <dave.han...@linux.intel.com> writes:
>> Yes. Boolean parameter isn't good at most times. Matthew Wilcox
>> suggested to use
>>
>> swap_duplicate(&entry, HPAGE_PMD_NR);
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> swap_duplicate(&entry, 1);
>>
>> He thinks this makes the interface more flexible to support other swap
>> entry size in the future. What do you think about that?
>
> That looks great to me too.
>
>>>> if (likely(!non_swap_entry(entry))) {
>>>> - if (swap_duplicate(entry) < 0)
>>>> + if (swap_duplicate(&entry, false) < 0)
>>>> return entry.val;
>>>>
>>>> /* make sure dst_mm is on swapoff's mmlist. */
>>>
>>> I'll also point out that in a multi-hundred-line patch, adding arguments
>>> to a existing function would not be something I'd try to include in the
>>> patch. I'd break it out separately unless absolutely necessary.
>>
>> You mean add another patch, which only adds arguments to the function,
>> but not change the body of the function?
>
> Yes. Or, just add the non-THP-swap version first.
OK, will do this.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
