On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 11:53:26PM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote: > > +void folio_remove_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page, > > + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma); > > I prefer folio_remove_rmap_range(page, nr, vma). Passing both the > folio and the starting page seems redundant to me. > > Matthew, is there a convention (function names, parameters, etc.) for > operations on a range of pages within a folio? We've been establishing that convention recently, yes. It seems pointless to re-derive the folio from the page when the caller already has the folio. I also like Ryan's point that it reinforces that all pages must be from the same folio. > And regarding the refactor, what I have in mind is that > folio_remove_rmap_range() is the core API and page_remove_rmap() is > just a wrapper around it, i.e., folio_remove_rmap_range(page, 1, vma). > > Let me post a diff later and see if it makes sense to you. I think that can make sense. Because we limit to a single page table, specifying 'nr = 1 << PMD_ORDER' is the same as 'compound = true'. Just make it folio, page, nr, vma. I'd actually prefer it as (vma, folio, page, nr), but that isn't the convention we've had in rmap up until now.
