On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 12:17:00PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 9/9/21 06:56, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > On 9/9/21 14:43, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > So what is the result here? Not having folios (with that or another > > > name) is really going to set back making progress on sane support for > > > huge pages. Both in the pagecache but also for other places like direct > > > I/O. > > > > Yeah, the silence doesn't seem actionable. If naming is the issue, I believe > > Matthew had also a branch where it was renamed to pageset. If it's the > > unclear future evolution wrt supporting subpages of large pages, should we > > just do nothing until somebody turns that hypothetical future into code and > > we see whether it works or not? > > > > When I saw Matthew's proposal to rename folio --> pageset, my reaction was, > "OK, this is a huge win!". Because: > > * The new name addressed Linus' concerns about naming, which unblocks it > there, and > > * The new name seems to meet all of the criteria of the "folio" name, > including even grep-ability, after a couple of tiny page_set and pageset > cases are renamed--AND it also meets Linus' criteria for self-describing > names. > > So I didn't want to add noise to that thread, but now that there is still > some doubt about this, I'll pop up and suggest: do the huge > 's/folio/pageset/g', and of course the associated renaming of the conflicting > existing pageset and page_set cases, and then maybe it goes in. So I've done that. https://git.infradead.org/users/willy/pagecache.git/shortlog/refs/tags/pageset-5.15 I sent it to Linus almost two weeks ago: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/YSmtjVTqR9%2F4W1aq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Still nothing, so I presume he's still thinking about it.
