On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 08:45:27PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * folio_zero_segment() - Zero a byte range in a folio.
> > + * @folio: The folio to write to.
> > + * @start: The first byte to zero.
> > + * @end: One more than the last byte in the first range.
> > + */
> > +static inline void folio_zero_segment(struct folio *folio,
> > + size_t start, size_t end)
> > +{
> > + zero_user_segments(&folio->page, start, end, 0, 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * folio_zero_range() - Zero a byte range in a folio.
> > + * @folio: The folio to write to.
> > + * @start: The first byte to zero.
> > + * @length: The number of bytes to zero.
> > + */
> > +static inline void folio_zero_range(struct folio *folio,
> > + size_t start, size_t length)
> > +{
> > + zero_user_segments(&folio->page, start, start + length, 0, 0);
>
> At first I thought "Gee, this is wrong, end should be start+length-1!"
>
> Then I looked at zero_user_segments and realized that despite the
> parameter name "endi1", it really wants you to tell it the next byte.
> Not the end byte of the range you want to zero.
>
> Then I looked at the other two new functions and saw that you documented
> this, and now I get why Linus ranted about this some time ago.
>
> The code looks right, but the "end" names rankle me. Can we please
> change them all? Or at least in the new functions, if you all already
> fought a flamewar over this that I'm not aware of?
Change them to what? I tend to use 'end' to mean 'excluded end' and
'max' to mean 'included end'. What would you call the excluded end?
