On 22/01/2024 17:20, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 06:01:58PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> And folio_mark_dirty() is doing more than just setting teh PG_dirty bit. In my >>> equivalent change, as part of the contpte series, I've swapped set_page_dirty() >>> for folio_mark_dirty(). >> >> Good catch, that should be folio_mark_dirty(). Let me send a fixup. >> >> (the difference in naming for both functions really is bad) > > It really is, and I don't know what to do about it. > > We need a function that literally just sets the flag. For every other > flag, that's folio_set_FLAG. We can't use __folio_set_flag because that > means "set the flag non-atomically". > > We need a function that does all of the work involved with tracking > dirty folios. I chose folio_mark_dirty() to align with > folio_mark_uptodate() (ie mark is not just 'set" but also "do some extra > work"). > > But because we're converting from set_page_dirty(), the OBVIOUS rename > is to folio_set_dirty(), which is WRONG. > > So we're in the part of the design space where the consistent naming and > the-obvious-thing-to-do-is-wrong are in collision, and I do not have a > good answer. > > Maybe we can call the first function _folio_set_dirty(), and we don't > have a folio_set_dirty() at all? We don't have a folio_set_uptodate(), > so there's some precedent there. Is there anything stopping us from renaming set_page_dirty() to mark_page_dirty() (or page_mark_dirty())? For me the folio naming is consistent, but the page names suck; presumably PageSetDirty() and set_page_dirty()... yuk.
