On 7/14/23 05:25, Jiaqi Yan wrote: > In the discussion of "Improve hugetlbfs read on HWPOISON hugepages", A very small nit, [1] should appear here instead ^^^^ > Matthew Wilcox suggests hwp is a bad abbreviation of hwpoison, as hwp > is already used as "an acronym by acpi, intel_pstate, some clock > drivers, an ethernet driver, and a scsi driver"[1]. Some examples here might have been useful, but never mind. > > So rename hwp_walk and hwp_walk_ops to hwpoison_walk and > hwpoison_walk_ops respectively. > > raw_hwp_(page|list), *_raw_hwp, and raw_hwp_unreliable flag are other > major appearances of "hwp". However, given the "raw" hint in the name, > it is easy to differentiate them from other "hwp" acronyms. Since > renaming them is not as straightforward as renaming hwp_walk*, they > are not covered by this commit. Makes sense. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230707201904.953262-5-jiaqiyan@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#me6fecb8ce1ad4d5769199c9e162a44bc88f7bdec > > Signed-off-by: Jiaqi Yan <jiaqiyan@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/memory-failure.c | 16 ++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c > index e245191e6b04..cb232e41f6c0 100644 > --- a/mm/memory-failure.c > +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c > @@ -721,7 +721,7 @@ static void collect_procs(struct page *page, struct list_head *tokill, > collect_procs_file(page, tokill, force_early); > } > > -struct hwp_walk { > +struct hwpoison_walk { > struct to_kill tk; > unsigned long pfn; > int flags; > @@ -756,7 +756,7 @@ static int check_hwpoisoned_entry(pte_t pte, unsigned long addr, short shift, > > #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE > static int check_hwpoisoned_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr, > - struct hwp_walk *hwp) > + struct hwpoison_walk *hwp) > { > pmd_t pmd = *pmdp; > unsigned long pfn; > @@ -774,7 +774,7 @@ static int check_hwpoisoned_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr, > } > #else > static int check_hwpoisoned_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr, > - struct hwp_walk *hwp) > + struct hwpoison_walk *hwp) > { > return 0; > } > @@ -783,7 +783,7 @@ static int check_hwpoisoned_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr, > static int hwpoison_pte_range(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr, > unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk) > { > - struct hwp_walk *hwp = walk->private; > + struct hwpoison_walk *hwp = walk->private; > int ret = 0; > pte_t *ptep, *mapped_pte; > spinlock_t *ptl; > @@ -817,7 +817,7 @@ static int hwpoison_hugetlb_range(pte_t *ptep, unsigned long hmask, > unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, > struct mm_walk *walk) > { > - struct hwp_walk *hwp = walk->private; > + struct hwpoison_walk *hwp = walk->private; > pte_t pte = huge_ptep_get(ptep); > struct hstate *h = hstate_vma(walk->vma); > > @@ -828,7 +828,7 @@ static int hwpoison_hugetlb_range(pte_t *ptep, unsigned long hmask, > #define hwpoison_hugetlb_range NULL > #endif > > -static const struct mm_walk_ops hwp_walk_ops = { > +static const struct mm_walk_ops hwpoison_walk_ops = { > .pmd_entry = hwpoison_pte_range, > .hugetlb_entry = hwpoison_hugetlb_range, > }; > @@ -850,7 +850,7 @@ static int kill_accessing_process(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long pfn, > int flags) > { > int ret; > - struct hwp_walk priv = { > + struct hwpoison_walk priv = { > .pfn = pfn, > }; > priv.tk.tsk = p; > @@ -859,7 +859,7 @@ static int kill_accessing_process(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long pfn, > return -EFAULT; > > mmap_read_lock(p->mm); > - ret = walk_page_range(p->mm, 0, TASK_SIZE, &hwp_walk_ops, > + ret = walk_page_range(p->mm, 0, TASK_SIZE, &hwpoison_walk_ops, > (void *)&priv); > if (ret == 1 && priv.tk.addr) > kill_proc(&priv.tk, pfn, flags); This makes better sense, and the patch LGTM in itself. There are no residues for "hwp_walk_ops" and "hwp_walk" symbols in the tree afterwards. Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx>
