Re: [PATCH 11/20] mm: zswap: function ordering: pool refcounting

[Nhat Pham]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 3:23 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:13:30PM -0800, Nhat Pham wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 5:42 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchgorg> wrote:
> > >
> > > Move pool refcounting functions into the pool section. First the
> > > destroy functions, then the get and put which uses them.
> > >
> > > __zswap_pool_empty() has an upward reference to the global
> > > zswap_pools, to sanity check it's not the currently active pool that's
> > > being freed. That gets the forward decl for zswap_pool_cuyrrent().
> >
> > nit: zswap_pool_cuyrrent() -> zswap_pool_current() :-)
>
> Whoops, my bad.
>
> Andrew, would you mind removing that typo inside your copy?
>
> > Also, would it make sense to move zswap_pool_current() above
> > __zswap_pool_empty() to get rid of the forward declaration? I guess
> > it's now grouped with current_get() etc. - those don't seem to use the
> > empty check, so maybe they can also go above __zswap_pool_empty()?
>
> There is a grouping to these functions:
>
> - low-level functions that create and destroy individual struct zswap_pool
>   (create, destroy, get, release, empty, put)
> - high-level functions that operate on pool collections, i.e. zswap_pools
>   (current, last, find)
>
> They were actually already grouped like that, just in the reverse
> order. The only way to avoid ALL forward decls would be to interleave
> the layers, but I think the grouping makes sense so I wanted to
> preserve that. I went with low to high ordering, and forward decl the
> odd one where a low-level function does one high-level sanity check.
>
> Does that make sense?

Makes sense to me - just double checking :)
Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx>