On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:28:58PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 01:14:29PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 08:43:12AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > -static int copy_pte_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm, > > > > - pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd, struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > > > - struct vm_area_struct *new, > > > > +static int copy_pte_range(pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd, > > > > + struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct *new, > > > > unsigned long addr, unsigned long end) > > > > > > I link this, my only minor quibble is the mixing of dst/src and new > > > language, and then reversing the order in each place. Would read > > > better to be consistent: > > > > > > copy_pte_range(dst_vma, dst_pmd, src_vma, src_pmd, addr, end) > > > > I have no strong opinion on the ordering, but I agree the names are clearer. > > Considering normally we put the same type of parameters to be together, how > > about: > > > > copy_pte_range(dst_vma, src_vma, dst_pmd, src_pmd, addr, end) > > I was looking at the order of (dst_pmd, src_pmd, src_vma, dest_vma) > > Whichever, just have some logic to it :) Oh, sure. :) -- Peter Xu
