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

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

Message-ID: <a0e0bdbf-c8a1-48af-9287-9de023adc065@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:29:20 +0530
From: Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
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 6/10/2025 1:44 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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 ;-)

Thank you Willy, Steve for the discussion.
Fair point about extra comments, I'll remove them.

Thanks,
Shivank