Re: [RFC 01/11] mm: use SWAP_SUCCESS instead of 0

2017-03-07 Thread Minchan Kim
Hi Kirill, On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:19:33PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 03:39:15PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > SWAP_SUCCESS defined value 0 can be changed always so don't rely on > > it. Instead, use explict macro. > > I'm okay with this as long as it's preparti

Re: [RFC 01/11] mm: use SWAP_SUCCESS instead of 0

2017-03-07 Thread Kirill A. Shutemov
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 03:39:15PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > SWAP_SUCCESS defined value 0 can be changed always so don't rely on > it. Instead, use explict macro. I'm okay with this as long as it's prepartion for something meaningful. 0 as success is widely used. I don't think replacing it's wit

Re: [RFC 01/11] mm: use SWAP_SUCCESS instead of 0

2017-03-06 Thread Anshuman Khandual
On 03/03/2017 08:31 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:57:10PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 03/02/2017 12:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: >>> SWAP_SUCCESS defined value 0 can be changed always so don't rely on >>> it. Instead, use explict macro. >> >> Right. But should not we mo

Re: [RFC 01/11] mm: use SWAP_SUCCESS instead of 0

2017-03-02 Thread Minchan Kim
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:57:10PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > On 03/02/2017 12:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > SWAP_SUCCESS defined value 0 can be changed always so don't rely on > > it. Instead, use explict macro. > > Right. But should not we move the changes to the callers last in the > pat

Re: [RFC 01/11] mm: use SWAP_SUCCESS instead of 0

2017-03-02 Thread Anshuman Khandual
On 03/02/2017 12:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > SWAP_SUCCESS defined value 0 can be changed always so don't rely on > it. Instead, use explict macro. Right. But should not we move the changes to the callers last in the patch series after doing the cleanup to the try_to_unmap() function as intended fi