On Monday, September 27, 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote:Hi....
On 28/09/10 06:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:On Monday, September 27, 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote:This one doesn't really good to me. What I'd prefer would be to have a
structure of "swap operations" pointers like ->start(), ->write_data(),
->read_data(), and ->finish() that will point to the functions in this file
(if compression is to be used) or to the "old" swap_write_page()/swap_read_page()
otherwise. That would reduce the number of the
(flags& SF_NOCOMPRESS_MODE) checks quite substantially and will likely result
in code that's easier to follow.
Me too. I was heading in that direction, but not doing it in one step.
I'll happily change that.
I'm still waiting for the reworked patch. If you can submit it in a few days
and it looks good, I'll include it into the pull request for 2.6.37.