[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4c255baa-99e3-4f48-9303-13edb99adc89@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 20:15:16 +0800
From: Alex Shi <seakeel@...il.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, alexs@...nel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
izik.eidus@...ellosystems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/ksm: rename mm_slot_cache to ksm_slot_cache
On 4/30/24 8:57 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>> @@ -2972,7 +2972,7 @@ int __ksm_enter(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> struct mm_slot *slot;
>> int needs_wakeup;
>> - ksm_slot = mm_slot_alloc(mm_slot_cache);
>> + ksm_slot = mm_slot_alloc(ksm_slot_cache);
>
> Similarly, this makes the code more confusion. The pattern in khugepaged is similarly:
>
> mm_slot = mm_slot_alloc(mm_slot_cache);
Could we rename it to khg_mm_slot_cache in khugepaged?
>
> I don't think we want these renamings.
>
> E.g., "ksm_mm_slot_cache" might be a bit better than "mm_slot_cache". But then, we are in KSM code ... so I don't really see an improvement.
Thanks for comments and sorry for response late.
yes, ksm_mm_slot_cache is better even in KSM code. As a cscope/tag dependency patient, this change could reduce much of confusing in name searching. And that's why a one-side change satisfies me.
Yes, maybe better naming could make it more readable, any more further help? :)
Thanks a lot!
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists