On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 01:58:09PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 03:10:07PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 11:02:11AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > > Kuan-Ying Lee <Kuan-Ying.Lee@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > Since we introduce folio, replace isolate_lru_page() with > > > > folio_isolate_lru(). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kuan-Ying Lee <Kuan-Ying.Lee@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/mm/page_migration.rst | 6 +++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > This seems like a good patch to copy to linux-mm - done now. > > > > > > The patch perhaps is a closer match to what's in linux-next, but it > > > seems that, if we're going to update this document, we should reflect > > > the use folios throughout? > > > > Most of the current users of migrate_pages() still use isolate_lru_page() > > so I think that updating page_migration.rst to folios is premature. > > But when we do the update it also should include the translations. > > It's a slim majority -- 9 of isolate_lru_pages() and 7 of > folio_isolate_lru(). I don't think that changing the documentation is > premature; we should document the functions we want people to use. > I'd be surprised if isolate_lru_pages() still existed in six months. That's a bit of a problem when documentation describes how things are done rather than how to do them, but I don't have a strong feeling about updating the docs while we are still in the transition period or postponing it until e.g. isolate_lru_page() is gone. But in any case, this should be much more comprehensive update rather than replacing two occurrences out of three in a single file. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
