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

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2024-07-05 14:02:22 [+0200], Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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.

I can't believe this…

> 
> Thanks,
> Olek

Sebastian