Re: [PATCH 2/2] rename NUMA fault handling functions

From: Michel Lespinasse
Date: Sat Oct 20 2012 - 06:15:22 EST


On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 17:20 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Having the function name indicate what the function is used
>> for makes the code a little easier to read. Furthermore,
>> the fault handling code largely consists of do_...._page
>> functions.
>
> I don't much care either way, but I was thinking walken might want to
> use something similar to do WSS estimation, in which case the NUMA name
> is just as wrong.

Right now my working set estimation only uses A bits, so let's not
make that a concern here.

I think the _numa names are a bit better than _prot_none, but still a
bit confusing. I don't have any great suggestions but I think there
should at least be a comment above pte_numa() that explains what the
numa ptes are (the comment within the function doesn't qualify as it
only explains how the numa ptes are different from the ones in
PROT_NONE vmas...)

--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/