On (05/15/17 16:41), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> index b885356551e9..8152e405117b 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -624,15 +624,22 @@ static void zram_free_page(struct zram *zram, size_t
> index)
> return;
> }
>
> + if (zram_dedup_enabled(zram) &&
> + zram_test_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_DUP)) {
> + zram_clear_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_DUP);
> + atomic64_sub(entry->len, &zram->stats.dup_data_size);
> + goto out;
> + }
so that `goto' there is to just jump over ->stats.compr_data_size?
can you sub ->stats.compr_data_size before the `if' and avoid labels?
> if (!entry)
> return;
shouldn't this `if' be moved before `if (zram_dedup_enabled(zram)`?
[..]
> @@ -794,7 +801,15 @@ static int __zram_bvec_write(struct zram *zram, struct
> bio_vec *bvec, u32 index)
> entry = zram_dedup_find(zram, page, &checksum);
> if (entry) {
> comp_len = entry->len;
> - goto found_dup;
> + zram_slot_lock(zram, index);
> + zram_free_page(zram, index);
> + zram_set_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_DUP);
> + zram_set_entry(zram, index, entry);
> + zram_set_obj_size(zram, index, comp_len);
> + zram_slot_unlock(zram, index);
> + atomic64_add(comp_len, &zram->stats.dup_data_size);
> + atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.pages_stored);
> + return 0;
hm. that's a somewhat big code duplication. isn't it?
-ss
