On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:09:45AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 22.04.21 05:20, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > I'm going through my patch queue implementing peterz's request to rename > > FolioUptodate() as folio_uptodate(). It's going pretty well, but it > > throws into relief all the places where we're not consistent naming > > existing functions which operate on pages as page_foo(). The folio > > conversion is a great opportunity to sort that out. Mostly so far, I've > > just done s/page/folio/ on function names, but there's the opportunity to > > regularise a lot of them, eg: > > > > put_page folio_put > > lock_page folio_lock > > lock_page_or_retry folio_lock_or_retry > > rotate_reclaimable_page folio_rotate_reclaimable > > end_page_writeback folio_end_writeback > > clear_page_dirty_for_io folio_clear_dirty_for_io > > > > Some of these make a lot of sense -- eg when ClearPageDirty has turned > > into folio_clear_dirty(), having folio_clear_dirty_for_io() looks regular. > > I'm not entirely convinced about folio_lock(), but folio_lock_or_retry() > > makes more sense than lock_page_or_retry(). Ditto _killable() or > > _async(). > > > > Thoughts? > > I tend to like prefixes: they directly set the topic. > > The only thing I'm concerned is that we end up with > > put_page vs. folio_put > > which is suboptimal. We have this issue across the kernel already, eg kref_put() vs its wrapper put_device() Personally I tend to think the regularity of 'thing'_'action' is easier to remember than to try to guess/remember that someone judged 'action'_'thing' to be more englishy. Jason
