Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_alloc: rename FPI_TRYLOCK -> FPI_NOLOCK

On 7/10/26 11:14 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
> On Fri Jul 10, 2026 at 8:40 AM EDT, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
>> On 7/10/26 12:42, Brendan Jackman wrote:
>>> As discussed in the linked patch, the there is some inconsistency between
>>> "trylock" and "nolock" nomenclature, let's align it. Since "nolock" is
>>> used in the public API it seems to have more mindshare so do that.
>>>
>>> The linked patch did this for the ALLOC_ flag but forgot about FPI_.
>>>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <[email protected]>
>>
>> Naming things is hard. Maybe it should have all been called "nospin". I
>> don't know anymore :)
>> _nolock() functions and ALLOC_NOLOCK are part of API, FPI_ is internal so
>> it's not that urgent. Furthermore:
> 
> I had a similar concern when reading ALLOC_TRYLOCK -> ALLOC_NOLOCK[1],
> since the name is _NOLOCK, but the comment says spin_trylock.
> 
> I agree that "nospin" is better and less confusing. But whether we want
> to churn it again, TBD. :)
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

Agreed, "nospin" is a better name!

At some point I realized "NOLOCK? well, we're using locks, but without
spinning. should be NOSPIN?", then thought it's bit late to change the
name without churn :)

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYKAB0WIQQQ1ub6gR5ogjaKRmOGXBN6rc5S1gUCalUT5wAKCRCGXBN6rc5S
1h/7AQCF5kASlmfGZSwsQDL+wbn4ZkmiaE9YxS5ntJj8j7Ik6wEA/deiUAuWtErF
6frBc+P/wyv/2HHN8j9qaE1Wo6yDZg0=
=iyK0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----