linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] mm: use folio_expected_ref_count() helper for reference counting

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20250609161454.27122eb4@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:14:54 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>, 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 Mon, 9 Jun 2025 20:51:00 +0100
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 03:31:40PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 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.  
> 
> That was a Socratic question, not for you to answer.
> 
> My opinion is that the extra commentary is obfuscatory and should be
> removed.


Ah, sorry, your response wasn't clear ;-)

-- Steve