linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/19] mm/swap: rename __read_swap_cache_async to swap_cache_alloc

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: <CAGsJ_4zryZ-FqxZDo8k6VLx4-ijPdjk4i+txVzP41ZS_koNBgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 17:10:26 +0800
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
Cc: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, 
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, 
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Youngjun Park <youngjun.park@....com>, 
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, 
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>, Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>, 
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, 
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/19] mm/swap: rename __read_swap_cache_async to swap_cache_alloc_folio

> > I assume you mean avoiding any mention of swap-out? As for swap-out, we’re
> > swapping a folio out from the LRU — we’re not allocating a new folio.
> >
> > BTW, this sentence also feels a bit odd to me. I’d prefer removing
> > “swap out” from
> > “doing IO (swap in or swap out)”.
>
> How about "doing IO (e.g. swap in or zswap writeback)"? Swap-in is a
> very common user, and zswap writeback can be mentioned explicitly.

Yes, that seems much better. Though Yosry seems to view zswap_writeback as a
swap-in from zswap followed by a swap-out to the device, I kind of
agree with him :-)

Mentioning the special case separately seems to be the clearest approach.

Thanks
Barry