Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] mm: convert FPB_IGNORE_* into FPB_HONOR_*

[David Hildenbrand]

On 27.06.25 18:28, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:55:07PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > Honoring these PTE bits is the exception, so let's invert the meaning.
> >
> > With this change, most callers don't have to pass any flags.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This is a nice change, it removes a lot of code I really didn't enjoy
> looking at for introducing these flags all over the place.
>
> But a nit on the naming below, I'm not a fan of 'honor' here :)
>
> > ---
> >   mm/internal.h  | 16 ++++++++--------
> >   mm/madvise.c   |  3 +--
> >   mm/memory.c    | 11 +++++------
> >   mm/mempolicy.c |  4 +---
> >   mm/mlock.c     |  3 +--
> >   mm/mremap.c    |  3 +--
> >   mm/rmap.c      |  3 +--
> >   7 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> > index e84217e27778d..9690c75063881 100644
> > --- a/mm/internal.h
> > +++ b/mm/internal.h
> > @@ -202,17 +202,17 @@ static inline void vma_close(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >   /* Flags for folio_pte_batch(). */
> >   typedef int __bitwise fpb_t;
> >
> > -/* Compare PTEs after pte_mkclean(), ignoring the dirty bit. */
> > -#define FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY		((__force fpb_t)BIT(0))
> > +/* Compare PTEs honoring the dirty bit. */
> > +#define FPB_HONOR_DIRTY		((__force fpb_t)BIT(0))
>
> Hm not to be petty but... :)
>
> I'm not sure I find 'honor' very clear here. Ignore is very clear, 'honor' (God
> the British English in me wants to say honour here but stipp :P) doesn't
> necessarily tell you what is going to happen.
>
> Perhaps PROPAGATE? or OBEY?

RESPECT? :)

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb