On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 09:52:11PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > write unprotection is a change from RO->RW, so I don't immediately see > the difference. In my view "unprotect a pte" is only a subset of "grant pte write permission", since: "unprotect" has a prerequisite that it used to be "protected" so that's why we can unprotect. Aka, in mm term that's only when VM_WRITE set. So basically it is a hint that we're only working on VM_WRITE regions, where I thought "unprotect" was slightly better. > > Anyhow, I don't like the sounding of TRY_WRITE_UNPROTECT. > > I made it match the function name that I had: > > MM_CP_TRY_CHANGE_WRITABLE > -> !pte_write()? > -> can_change_pte_writable() ? > ->pte_mkwrite() > > Maybe MM_CP_TRY_MAKE_WRITABLE / MM_CP_TRY_MAKE_PTE_WRITABLE is clearer? > > Open for suggestions because I'm apparently not the bast at naming > things either. Me neither. I don't have a strong opinion anyway, and frankly indeed the old naming is not great either to me. Maybe there's better thoughts. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
