On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 05:11:36PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 01/03/23 13:13, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:
> > @@ -3477,15 +3477,15 @@ static int demote_free_huge_page(struct hstate *h, struct page *page)
> > mutex_lock(&target_hstate->resize_lock);
> > for (i = 0; i < pages_per_huge_page(h);
> > i += pages_per_huge_page(target_hstate)) {
> > - subpage = nth_page(page, i);
> > - folio = page_folio(subpage);
> > + subpage = folio_page(folio, i);
> > + subfolio = page_folio(subpage);
>
> No problems with the code, but I am not in love with the name subfolio.
> I know it is patterned after 'subpage'. For better or worse, the term
> subpage is used throughout the kernel. This would be the first usage of
> the term 'subfolio'.
>
> Matthew do you have any comments on the naming? It is local to hugetlb,
> but I would hate to see use of the term subfolio based on its introduction
> here.
I'm really not a fan of it either. I intended to dive into this patch
and understand the function it's modifying, in the hopes of suggesting
a better name and/or method.
Since I haven't done that yet, maybe "new" or "dest" names work?
