linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] mm: replace folio_lock_or_retry with folio_lock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZJr+vlkIpaHWj1xg@x1n>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:22:38 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
        mhocko@...e.com, josef@...icpanda.com, jack@...e.cz,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@...ibm.com,
        michel@...pinasse.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, jglisse@...gle.com,
        vbabka@...e.cz, minchan@...gle.com, dave@...olabs.net,
        punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com, hdanton@...a.com,
        apopple@...dia.com, ying.huang@...el.com, david@...hat.com,
        yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
        pasha.tatashin@...een.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] mm: replace folio_lock_or_retry with
 folio_lock_fault

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 09:23:17PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Change folio_lock_or_retry to accept vm_fault struct and return the
> vm_fault_t directly. This will be used later to return additional
> information about the state of the mmap_lock upon return from this
> function.
> 
> Suggested-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>

The patch looks all fine to me except on the renaming..

*_fault() makes me think of a fault handler, while *_lock_or_retry() was
there for years and it still sounds better than the new one to me.

Can we still come up with a better renaming, or just keep the name?

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu