On Mon 12-02-18 17:16:40, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 04:03:14PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Sat 03-02-18 13:24:22, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > > [...] > > > That said, I really hope this won't be the last comment in the thread > > > and appropriate suggestions will come on how to go forward. > > > > Just to make sure we are on the same page. I was suggesting the > > following. The patch is slightly larger just because I move > > memblock_next_valid_pfn around which I find better than sprinkling > > ifdefs around. Please note I haven't tried to compile test this. > > I got your point. So, I was wrong. You are not preferring v2 of this > patch, but suggest a new variant of it. For the record, I've also > build/boot-tested your variant with no issues. The reason I did not > make it my favorite is to allow reviewers to concentrate on what's > actually the essence of this change, i.e. relaxing the dependency of > memblock_next_valid_pfn() from HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (which requires/ > depends on NUMA) to HAVE_MEMBLOCK (which doesn't).
Yes, and that makes perfect sense. > As I've said in some previous reply, I am open minded about which > variant is selected by MM people, since, from my point of view, all of > them do the same thing with variable degree of code readability. Agreed. I just wanted to reduce to necessity to define memblock_next_valid_pfn for !CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK. IS_ENABLED check also nicely hides the ifdefery. I also prefer to have more compact ifdef blocks rather than smaller ones split by other functions. > For me it's not a problem to submit a new patch. I guess that a > prerequisite for this is to reach some agreement on what people think is > the best option, which I feel didn't occur yet. I do not have a _strong_ preference here as well. So I will leave the decision to you. In any case feel free to add Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.com> -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs