From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753997Ab1HZAJt (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:09:49 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:42833 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753079Ab1HZAJs (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:09:48 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:02:14 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Dan Magenheimer Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, jeremy@goop.org, hughd@google.com, ngupta@vflare.org, Konrad Wilk , JBeulich@novell.com, Kurt Hackel , npiggin@kernel.dk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, riel@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, matthew@wil.cx, Chris Mason , sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jackdachef@gmail.com, cyclonusj@gmail.com Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH V7 1/4] mm: frontswap: swap data structure changes Message-Id: <20110826090214.2f7f2cdc.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <8a95a804-7ba3-416e-9ba5-8da7b9cabba5@default> References: <20110823145755.GA23174@ca-server1.us.oracle.com 20110825143312.a6fe93d5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <8a95a804-7ba3-416e-9ba5-8da7b9cabba5@default> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Dan Magenheimer wrote: > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [mailto:kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com] > > Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH V7 1/4] mm: frontswap: swap data structure changes > > Hi Kamezawa-san -- > > Domo arigato for the review and feedback! > > > Hmm....could you modify mm/swapfile.c and remove 'static' in the same patch ? > > I separated out this header patch because I thought it would > make the key swap data structure changes more visible. Are you > saying that it is more confusing? Yes. I know you add a new header file which is not included but.. At reviewing patch, I check whether all required changes are done. In this case, you turned out the function to be externed but you leave the function definition as 'static'. This unbalance confues me. I always read patches from 1 to END. When I found an incomplete change in patch 1, I remember it and need to find missng part from patch 2->End. This makes my review confused a little. In another case, when a patch adds a new file, I check Makefile change. Considering dependency, the patch order should be [patch 1] Documentaion/Config [patch 2] Makefile + add new file. But plesse note: This is my thought. Other guys may have other idea. Thanks, -Kame