>>>>>> Otherwise, I'd like to have feature naming more higher level>>>>>> to represent page migration failure and then tracking unref of >>>>>> the page. In the sense, PagePinOwner John suggested was good >>>>>> candidate(Even, my original naming PagePinner was worse) since >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I dislike both variants. >>>>> >>>>>> I was trouble to abstract the feature with short word. >>>>>> If we approach "what feature is doing" rather than "what's >>>>>> the feature's goal"(I feel the your suggestion would be close >>>>>> to what feature is doing), I'd like to express "unreference on >>>>>> migraiton failed page" so PAGE_EXT_UNMIGRATED_UNREF >>>>>> (However, I prefer the feature naming more "what we want to achieve") >>>>>> >>>>> E.g., PAGE_EXT_TRACE_UNREF will trace unref to the page once the bit is >>>>> set. The functionality itself is completely independent of migration >>>>> failures. That's just the code that sets it to enable the underlying >>>>> tracing for that specific page. >>>> >>>> I agree that make something general is great but I also want to avoid >>>> create something too big from the beginning with just imagination. >>>> So, I'd like to hear more concrete and appealing usecases and then >>>> we could think over this trace approach is really the best one to >>>> achieve the goal. Once it's agreed, the naming you suggested would >>>> make sense. >>> >>> At least for me it's a lot cleaner if a feature clearly expresses what >>> it actually does. Staring at PAGE_EXT_PIN_OWNER I initially had no clue. >>> I was assuming we would actually track (not trace!) all active FOLL_PIN >>> (not unref callers!). Maybe that makes it clearer why I'd prefer a >>> clearer name. >> >> I totally agree PagePinOwner is not 100% straightforward. I'm open for >> other better name. Currently we are discussing how we could generalize >> and whether it's useful or not. Depending on the discussion, the design/ >> interface as well as naming could be changed. No problem. > > PagePinOwner is just highly misleading. Because that's not what the > feature does. Having that said, i hope we'll get other opinions as well. FWIW, I think "page reference holder" would be clearer. PageRefHolder or PageReferenceHolder "Trace page reference holders on unref after migration of a page failed." -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
