Hi Conor, Marco, Andrew, On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:58 AM Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 12:35:00PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 12:33:15PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > Hey Alex, > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 05:10:30PM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote: > > > > That makes it more clear what the underlying type is, no functional > > > > changes intended. > > > > > > Scanning through stuff on patchwork, this really doesn't seem worth the > > > churn. I thought this sort of Hungarian notation-esque stuff was a > > > relic of a time before I could read & our docs even go as far as to > > > > s/go/went/, I see the language got changed in more recent releases of > > the kernel! > > The documentation seems to still be against it, but, despite that and > the two very valid points raised by Marco (backporting and git-blame), > I think ptep is special and I'm mostly in favor of this change. We may > not need to s/r every instance, but certainly functions which need to > refer to both the pte and the ptep representations of entries becomes > more clear when using the 'p' convention (and then it's nice to have > ptep used everywhere else too for consistency...) > > Anyway, just my 2 cents. I started changing that in one function and another one, and another one...etc up to every instance. I still think that it makes things clearer, but that's subjective, you raised valid points and I'd really like to see this land in 6.7 so I'll revert this patch and send a v2. Thanks for your feedbacks, Alex > > Thanks, > drew
