Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock_t.

[Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>]

From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:08 +0200

> On 2024-07-04 13:38:04 [+0200], Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>> index 3acd7006ad2cc..036845cd4f25e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>>> @@ -57,19 +57,34 @@ static void zram_free_page(struct zram *zram, size_t index);
>>>  static int zram_read_page(struct zram *zram, struct page *page, u32 index,
>>>  			  struct bio *parent);
>>>  
>>> +static void zram_meta_init_table_locks(struct zram *zram, size_t num_pages)
>>> +{
>>> +	size_t index;
>>> +
>>> +	for (index = 0; index < num_pages; index++)
>>
>> Maybe declare @index right here?
> 
> But why? Declarations at the top followed by code. 

I meant

	for (size_t index = 0; index < num_pages; index++)

It's allowed and even recommended for a couple years already.

> 
>>
>>> +		spin_lock_init(&zram->table[index].lock);
>>> +}
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Olek
> 
> Sebastian

Thanks,
Olek