Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] zsmalloc: let callers select NUMA node to store the compressed objects

[Dan Williams]

Nhat Pham wrote:
[..]
> That still leaves zram though. zram is more complicated than zswap -
> it has multiple allocation paths, so I don't want to touch it quite
> yet (and preferably a zram maintainer/developer should do it). :) Or
> if zram maintainers are happy with NUMA_NO_NODE, then we can
> completely get rid of the pointer arguments etc.

At a minimum make the argument a "const int *" so it does not look like
the value can be changed by the leaf functions.

...but I would challenge zram folks to ack/nak that change rather than
maintain old behavior based purely on momentum. I.e. add to the commit
message an "exclude zswap from this policy for $explicit_reason"
statement rather than the current $implicit_guess that the old behavior
is there for "reasons".