On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:26:40 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 01:09:55AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote: > > Function nr_free_zone_pages, nr_free_buffer_pages and nr_free_pagecache_pages > > are horribly badly named, they count present_pages - pages_high within zones > > instead of free pages, so why not rename them to reasonable names, not cofusing > > people. > > > > patch2 and patch3 are based on patch1. So please apply patch1 first. > > > > Zhang Yanfei (3): > > mm: rename nr_free_zone_pages to nr_free_zone_high_pages > > mm: rename nr_free_buffer_pages to nr_free_buffer_high_pages > > mm: rename nr_free_pagecache_pages to nr_free_pagecache_high_pages > > I don't feel that this is an improvement. > > As you said, the "free" is already misleading, because those pages > might all be allocated. "High" makes me think not just of highmem, > but drug abuse in general. > > nr_available_*_pages? I don't know, but if we go through with all > that churn, it had better improve something. Yes, those names are ghastly. Here's an idea: accurately document the functions with code comments. Once this is done, that documentation may well suggest a good name ;) While we're there, please note that nr_free_buffer_pages() has a *lot* of callers. Generally it's code which is trying to work out what is an appropriate size for preallocated caching space, lookup tables, etc. That's a rather hopeless objective, given memory hotplug, mlock, etc. But please do take a look at *why* these callers are calling nr_free_buffer_pages() and let's ensure that both the implementation and name are appropriate to their requirements. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>