Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm: update comments to refer to anon rmap rather than anon_vma

[Pedro Falcato]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2026 at 08:47:43PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> Now that vma_has_anon_rmap() abstracts whether a VMA has an anonymous
> reverse mapping, remove references to anon_vma and instead reference the
> anon rmap.

Hmm, I guess this is where we figure out if "drop the anon rmap" or "insert the
anon rmap" or "iterate anon rmaps" makes sense, language wise.

Wouldn't the rmap be the map itself (e.g the current cursed
anon-vma-anon-vma-chain structure, or in the Glorious Future your remap
tracking tree)?


> 
> The anon_vma is an implementation detail and should be treated as such.
> 
> Do not update mm/rmap.c which implements the anon_vma mechanism as it is
> reasonable to directly reference it there.
> 
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@xxxxxxxxxx>

Anyway, you're the native speaker here, so I'll let you decide:

Acked-by: Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@xxxxxxx>

Thank you for the series!

-- 
Pedro