[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E40B36E2-1D0E-4769-B155-0175A06DE3AB@goodmis.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 15:31:40 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>
CC: mhiramat@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, david@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: use folio_expected_ref_count() helper for reference counting
On June 9, 2025 3:21:20 PM EDT, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 05:08:07PM +0000, Shivank Garg wrote:
>> Replace open-coded folio reference count calculations with the
>> folio_expected_ref_count() helper to improve code maintainability
>> and reduce duplication.
>
>If it needs this much additional commentary, perhaps it's not actually
>clearer?
I don't know. I tend to over explain as I rather make it totally obvious what is happening. I wouldn't say excessive commentary is necessarily a sign that it's not clearer.
Not knowing the code, the explanation makes sense to me.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists