Re: [PATCHv2 03/10] zram: use idr instead of `zram_devices' array

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (04/23/15 11:23), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]

> > +static int zram_exit_cb(int id, void *ptr, void *data)
> 
> trivial: I prefer remove to exit.
> 

ok.

> > +{
> > +	zram_remove(ptr);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> >  
> > -	kfree(zram_devices);
> > +static void destroy_devices(void)
> > +{
> > +	idr_for_each(&zram_index_idr, &zram_exit_cb, NULL);
> > +	idr_destroy(&zram_index_idr);
> >  	unregister_blkdev(zram_major, "zram");
> > -	pr_info("Destroyed %u device(s)\n", nr);
> > +	pr_info("Destroyed device(s)\n");
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int __init zram_init(void)
> > @@ -1283,16 +1302,9 @@ static int __init zram_init(void)
> >  		return -EBUSY;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	/* Allocate the device array and initialize each one */
> > -	zram_devices = kzalloc(num_devices * sizeof(struct zram), GFP_KERNEL);
> > -	if (!zram_devices) {
> > -		unregister_blkdev(zram_major, "zram");
> > -		return -ENOMEM;
> > -	}
> > -
> >  	for (dev_id = 0; dev_id < num_devices; dev_id++) {
> > -		ret = create_device(&zram_devices[dev_id], dev_id);
> > -		if (ret)
> > +		ret = zram_add(dev_id);
> > +		if (ret != 0)
> 
> It's better to check ret < 0 rather than ret != 0.
> 

yes, it's

        for (dev_id = 0; dev_id < num_devices; dev_id++) {
                mutex_lock(&zram_index_mutex);
                ret = zram_add(dev_id);
                mutex_unlock(&zram_index_mutex);
                if (ret < 0)
                        goto out_error;
        }


at the end of the patch set.


will clean up everything and resubmit after the merge window, next week.


thanks!

	-ss

> Otherwise,
> Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/