Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 00/23] mm/gup: track dma-pinned pages: FOLL_PIN, FOLL_LONGTERM | From | John Hubbard <> | Date | Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:28:02 -0800 |
| |
On 11/13/19 3:43 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: ... >>>> Can't we call this unpin_user_page then, for some symmetry? Or is that >>>> even more churn? >>>> >>>> Looking from afar the naming here seems really confusing. >>> >>> >>> That look from afar is valuable, because I'm too close to the problem to see >>> how the naming looks. :) >>> >>> unpin_user_page() sounds symmetrical. It's true that it would cause more >>> churn (which is why I started off with a proposal that avoids changing the >>> names of put_user_page*() APIs). But OTOH, the amount of churn is proportional >>> to the change in direction here, and it's really only 10 or 20 lines changed, >>> in the end. >>> >>> So I'm open to changing to that naming. It would be nice to hear what others >>> prefer, too... >> >> FWIW I'd find unpin_user_page() also better than put_user_page() as a >> counterpart to pin_user_pages(). > > One more point from afar on pin/unpin: We use that a lot in graphics for > permanently pinned graphics buffer objects. Which really only should be > used for scanout. So at least graphics folks should have an appropriate > mindset and try to make sure we don't overuse this stuff. > -Daniel >
OK, Ira also likes "unpin", and so far no one has said *anything* in favor of the "put_user_page" names, so I think we have a winner! I'll change the names to unpin_user_page*().
thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA
| |