Re: [RFC][PATCH] swsusp: do not use higher order allocations on resume [update 2]

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Tuesday, 8 of February 2005 20:10, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > so it is okay, but... 
> > 
> > ... I could have done it more elegantly.  You're right, I've now introduced
> > a function eat_page() that adds a page to the list of unusable pages and
> > used it instead of the free_page() here.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > > > +		p = pbe;
> > > > +		pbe += PB_PAGE_SKIP;
> > > > +		do
> > > > +			p->next = p + 1;
> > > > +		while (p++ < pbe);
> > > 
> > > I've already seen this code somewhere around in different
> > > variant... Perhaps you want to make it inline function?
> > 
> > I tried to avoid modifying the suspend part, but if it's not a problem,
> > why don't we go farther and reuse alloc_pagedir() in the resume code?
> > 
> > It has the advantage that read_pagedir() is then much simpler, and it
> > returns an integer.  However, for this purpose, it's better to split
> > alloc_pagedir() into two functions, one of which allocates memory pages,
> > and the second puts the list structure on them.
> 
> I guess that modifying suspend part is okay. We do not want to have
> two copies of similar code...
> 
> > > > +	if(!(pagedir_nosave = swsusp_pagedir_relocate(p)))
> > > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > 
> > > Same here.
> > 
> > The value is used in error reporting and the only reason why this function
> > may fail is the lack of memory (the same applies to alloc_pagedir()).
> > 
> > The revised (not as thoroughly tested as the previous one, but hopefully
> > nicer) patch follows.
> 
> I guess I'll wait for "reuse alloc_pagedir" version.

It's this one. :-)

Greets,
Rafael


-- 
- Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
- That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.
		-- Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"