Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] mm: Call pointers to ptes as ptep

[Dev Jain]

On 11/06/25 6:53 pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 10.06.25 05:50, Dev Jain wrote:
> > Avoid confusion between pte_t* and pte_t data types by suffixing pointer
> > type variables with p. No functional change.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Barry Song <baohua@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   mm/mremap.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
> >   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
> > index 60f6b8d0d5f0..180b12225368 100644
> > --- a/mm/mremap.c
> > +++ b/mm/mremap.c
> > @@ -176,7 +176,8 @@ static int move_ptes(struct 
> > pagetable_move_control *pmc,
> >       struct vm_area_struct *vma = pmc->old;
> >       bool need_clear_uffd_wp = vma_has_uffd_without_event_remap(vma);
> >       struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> > -    pte_t *old_pte, *new_pte, pte;
> > +    pte_t *old_ptep, *new_ptep;
> > +    pte_t pte;
>
> Could have left that on the same line ...

AFAIR Lorenzo had insisted on moving that to a new line.


> >       pmd_t dummy_pmdval;
> >       spinlock_t *old_ptl, *new_ptl;
> >       bool force_flush = false;
> > @@ -211,8 +212,8 @@ static int move_ptes(struct 
> > pagetable_move_control *pmc,
> >        * We don't have to worry about the ordering of src and dst
> >        * pte locks because exclusive mmap_lock prevents deadlock.
> >        */
> > -    old_pte = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, old_pmd, old_addr, &old_ptl);
> > -    if (!old_pte) {
> > +    old_ptep = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, old_pmd, old_addr, &old_ptl);
> > +    if (!old_ptep) {
> >           err = -EAGAIN;
>
> One of those things that's completely inconsistent all over the place.
>
> But yeah, I agree that ptep is much better for a PTE pointer.
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>