On 11/3/20 5:21 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 04:19:11AM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:11 AM Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 2:30 AM Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 1:21 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 01:09:12AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
Currently, mm_struct has two refcounts:
...
Either way can work, I liked the suggestion because it suggests an
good name for the ref: 'mmget_pgd' or somesuch
What I don't like is how nonsensical the names here are becoming:
mmget/mmgrab/mm_ref
Gives no impression at the callsite what is right/wrong
Names like this:
mmget_struct
mmget_pgd
mmget_tables
What?! I had just resigned myself to a bimonthly exercise, re-memorizing
the mm_struct naming correlation between grab, drop, get, put, count,
and users. And now you want to make it directly understandable? :)
Make alot more sense to me..
I think this patch needs to do something about the naming..
A third counter also seems like the tipping point, to me.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
