[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7c05a142-09a4-cfc1-b6ef-db89abcffd35@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 08:35:50 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Jiaqi Yan <jiaqiyan@...gle.com>, naoya.horiguchi@....com
Cc: linmiaohe@...wei.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/hwpoison: rename hwp_walk* to hwpoison_walk*
On 7/14/23 05:25, Jiaqi Yan wrote:
> In the discussion of "Improve hugetlbfs read on HWPOISON hugepages",
A very small nit, [1] should appear here instead ^^^^
> Matthew Wilcox suggests hwp is a bad abbreviation of hwpoison, as hwp
> is already used as "an acronym by acpi, intel_pstate, some clock
> drivers, an ethernet driver, and a scsi driver"[1].
Some examples here might have been useful, but never mind.
>
> So rename hwp_walk and hwp_walk_ops to hwpoison_walk and
> hwpoison_walk_ops respectively.
>
> raw_hwp_(page|list), *_raw_hwp, and raw_hwp_unreliable flag are other
> major appearances of "hwp". However, given the "raw" hint in the name,
> it is easy to differentiate them from other "hwp" acronyms. Since
> renaming them is not as straightforward as renaming hwp_walk*, they
> are not covered by this commit.
Makes sense.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230707201904.953262-5-jiaqiyan@google.com/T/#me6fecb8ce1ad4d5769199c9e162a44bc88f7bdec
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiaqi Yan <jiaqiyan@...gle.com>
> ---
> mm/memory-failure.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index e245191e6b04..cb232e41f6c0 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -721,7 +721,7 @@ static void collect_procs(struct page *page, struct list_head *tokill,
> collect_procs_file(page, tokill, force_early);
> }
>
> -struct hwp_walk {
> +struct hwpoison_walk {
> struct to_kill tk;
> unsigned long pfn;
> int flags;
> @@ -756,7 +756,7 @@ static int check_hwpoisoned_entry(pte_t pte, unsigned long addr, short shift,
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> static int check_hwpoisoned_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr,
> - struct hwp_walk *hwp)
> + struct hwpoison_walk *hwp)
> {
> pmd_t pmd = *pmdp;
> unsigned long pfn;
> @@ -774,7 +774,7 @@ static int check_hwpoisoned_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr,
> }
> #else
> static int check_hwpoisoned_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr,
> - struct hwp_walk *hwp)
> + struct hwpoison_walk *hwp)
> {
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -783,7 +783,7 @@ static int check_hwpoisoned_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr,
> static int hwpoison_pte_range(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr,
> unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk)
> {
> - struct hwp_walk *hwp = walk->private;
> + struct hwpoison_walk *hwp = walk->private;
> int ret = 0;
> pte_t *ptep, *mapped_pte;
> spinlock_t *ptl;
> @@ -817,7 +817,7 @@ static int hwpoison_hugetlb_range(pte_t *ptep, unsigned long hmask,
> unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> struct mm_walk *walk)
> {
> - struct hwp_walk *hwp = walk->private;
> + struct hwpoison_walk *hwp = walk->private;
> pte_t pte = huge_ptep_get(ptep);
> struct hstate *h = hstate_vma(walk->vma);
>
> @@ -828,7 +828,7 @@ static int hwpoison_hugetlb_range(pte_t *ptep, unsigned long hmask,
> #define hwpoison_hugetlb_range NULL
> #endif
>
> -static const struct mm_walk_ops hwp_walk_ops = {
> +static const struct mm_walk_ops hwpoison_walk_ops = {
> .pmd_entry = hwpoison_pte_range,
> .hugetlb_entry = hwpoison_hugetlb_range,
> };
> @@ -850,7 +850,7 @@ static int kill_accessing_process(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long pfn,
> int flags)
> {
> int ret;
> - struct hwp_walk priv = {
> + struct hwpoison_walk priv = {
> .pfn = pfn,
> };
> priv.tk.tsk = p;
> @@ -859,7 +859,7 @@ static int kill_accessing_process(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long pfn,
> return -EFAULT;
>
> mmap_read_lock(p->mm);
> - ret = walk_page_range(p->mm, 0, TASK_SIZE, &hwp_walk_ops,
> + ret = walk_page_range(p->mm, 0, TASK_SIZE, &hwpoison_walk_ops,
> (void *)&priv);
> if (ret == 1 && priv.tk.addr)
> kill_proc(&priv.tk, pfn, flags);
This makes better sense, and the patch LGTM in itself. There are no residues
for "hwp_walk_ops" and "hwp_walk" symbols in the tree afterwards.
Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists