Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 2023/7/3 10:28, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Use helper function destroy_memory_type() to release memtype instead
>>> of open code it to help improve code readability a bit. No functional
>>> change intended.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> mm/memory-tiers.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c
>>> index e593e56e530b..0b8b76078c12 100644
>>> --- a/mm/memory-tiers.c
>>> +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c
>>> @@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ void clear_node_memory_type(int node, struct memory_dev_type *memtype)
>>> */
>>> if (!node_memory_types[node].map_count) {
>>> node_memory_types[node].memtype = NULL;
>>> - kref_put(&memtype->kref, release_memtype);
>>> + destroy_memory_type(memtype);
>>
>> Not need to be changed in this patch. It appears that
>> destroy_memory_type() isn't a very good name, because we usually will
>> not free the memory_type here. Rename it to "put_memory_type()"?
>
> Do you mean rename destroy_memory_type to put_memory_type in a
> separate patch?
Yes.
> This sounds reasonable to me. But destroy_memory_type is a
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL symbol, is it fine to do the rename work?
I think so. This isn't a kernel ABI. And not many people use it now.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
