On Sun, Sep 01, 2024 at 10:24:10PM GMT, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 8/14/24 09:33, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 1:27 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > There are already memalloc_noreclaim_{save,restore} which imply __GFP_MEMALLOC:
> >> >
> >> > memalloc_noreclaim_save - Marks implicit __GFP_MEMALLOC scope.
> >>
> >> .. and those are horrible misnamed :(
>
> Yes I agree, sorry about that.
>
> > What about renaming it to memalloc_memalloc_save ?
>
> While it looks weird, it could be indeed better than the current name. It's
> not obvious, so it should force the user to read the description.
> memalloc_noreclaim_save() might look too obviously "this disables reclaim"
> but it's misleading as that's not the full story of PF_MEMALLOC.
I was actually thinking about killing the helpers in favor of just
memalloc_flags_save() - I don't think the extra names get us anything
