* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [241017 17:08]: > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:15:20 -0700 Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > -static struct vm_area_struct *vma_to_resize(unsigned long addr, > > > > > +static int mremap_vma_check(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, > > > > The original function is vma_to_resize, and mremap_vma_check is > > > > missing this context. > > > > Maybe mremap_vma_check_resize is a better name ? > > > > > > Good point. That suggestion is long though. Perhaps > > > vma_check_resize(), since this is a static function in the mremap.c > > > file, it is fine to drop mremap from the name. > > > > > I'm ok with that. > > Any function with "check" in the name makes my teeth ache. "check" > what? And the name doesn't carry any connotation of the return value's > meaning. > > eg, "check_the_cheese()" versus "cheese_is_fresh()". The latter name > tells you what is being checked and it tells you what a "true" return > value means. Fair enough, how about resize_is_valid()? > > Also, the dang function isn't documented. I'll add that, thanks. > > Also, why is mremap_to() calling mremap_vma_check() without testing its > return value? mremap_vma_check() doesn't actually alter anything, does > it? If it does then it's misnamed. That's an issue, I'll fix it. Thanks, Liam
