Hi Mike, Thank you very much for your comments!
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:52 AM Mike Rapoport <[email protected]> wrote: > > -/* > > - * TODO: __maybe_unused is added to the functions: > > - * kho_preserve_page_table() > > - * kho_walk_tables() > > - * kho_memblock_reserve() > > - * since they are not actually being called in this change. > > - * __maybe_unused will be removed in the next patch. > > - */ > > -static __maybe_unused int kho_preserve_page_table(unsigned long pfn, int > > order) > > +static int kho_preserve_page_table(unsigned long pfn, int order) > > Just merge this and the previous patch so that the patch will replace the > current preservation mechanism with a new one. Sure I can do this. > > @@ -1023,12 +752,8 @@ int kho_preserve_folio(struct folio *folio) > > { > > const unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio); > > const unsigned int order = folio_order(folio); > > - struct kho_mem_track *track = &kho_out.ser.track; > > - > > - if (kho_out.finalized) > > - return -EBUSY; > > > > - return __kho_preserve_order(track, pfn, order); > > + return kho_preserve_page_table(pfn, order); > > I don't think we should "rename" __kho_preserve_order() to > kho_preserve_page_table(). __kho_preserve_order() could use the new data > structure, or call the new implementation, but I don't see a reason to > replace it. > Ok, I prefer calling the new implementation, so it will look like: kho_preserve_folio() -> __kho_preserve_order() -> __kho_preserve_page_table() __kho_preserve_page_table() is the internal implementation of kho_preserve_page_table() and we can remove the kho_preserve_page_table(). -- Jason Miu
