Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] mm/gup: consistently name GUP-fast functions
David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded,gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.mips,gmane.linux.kernel.perf.user,gmane.linux.kernel.mm,gmane.linux.file-systems,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel |
|---|---|
| Organization | Red Hat |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 27.03.24 14:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 02:05:36PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Let's consistently call the "fast-only" part of GUP "GUP-fast" and rename
>> all relevant internal functions to start with "gup_fast", to make it
>> clearer that this is not ordinary GUP. The current mixture of
>> "lockless", "gup" and "gup_fast" is confusing.
>>
>> Further, avoid the term "huge" when talking about a "leaf" -- for
>> example, we nowadays check pmd_leaf() because pmd_huge() is gone. For the
>> "hugepd"/"hugepte" stuff, it's part of the name ("is_hugepd"), so that
>> says.
>>
>> What remains is the "external" interface:
>> * get_user_pages_fast_only()
>> * get_user_pages_fast()
>> * pin_user_pages_fast()
>>
>> And the "internal" interface that handles GUP-fast + fallback:
>> * internal_get_user_pages_fast()
>
> This would like a better name too. How about gup_fast_fallback() ?
Yes, I was not able to come up with something I liked. But I do like
your proposal, so I'll do that!
[...]
>
> I think it is a great idea, it always takes a moment to figure out if
> a function is part of the fast callchain or not..
>
> (even better would be to shift the fast stuff into its own file, but I
> expect that is too much)
Yes, one step at a time :)
>
> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
Thanks Jason!
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb