Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 03/10] mm/vma: rename is_vma_write_only(), separate out shared refcount put

[Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 09:24:54AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 1/22/26 20:31, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >> > +     int oldcnt;
> >> > +     bool detached;
> >> > +
> >> > +     detached = __refcount_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_refcnt, &oldcnt);
> >> > +     if (refcnt)
> >> > +             *refcnt = oldcnt - 1;
> >> > +     return detached;
> >
> > IIUC there is always a connection between detached and *refcnt
> > resulting value. If detached==true then the resulting *refcnt has to
> > be 0. If so, __vma_refcount_put() can simply return (oldcnt - 1) as
> > new count:
> >
> > static inline int __vma_refcount_put(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > {
> >        int oldcnt;
> >
> >        __refcount_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_refcnt, &oldcnt);
> >        return oldcnt - 1;
> > }
> >
> > And later:
> >
> > newcnt = __vma_refcount_put(&vma->vm_refcnt);
> > detached = newcnt == 0;
>
> If we go that way (both ways are fine with me) I'd suggest we rename the
> function to __vma_refcount_put_return to make this more obvious. (c.f.
> atomic_dec_return, lockref_put_return).
>

That's kind of horrible?

The lockref_put_return() seems to encode even more in it:

/**
 * lockref_put_return - Decrement reference count if possible
 * @lockref: pointer to lockref structure
 *
 * Decrement the reference count and return the new value.
 * If the lockref was dead or locked, return -1.
 */

But I guess it's still returning, it's just a weird convention, and not one
refcount uses, but perhaps because that uses output parameters.

I'll rename it I guess on the atomic basis but I just find the idea of
suffixing 'return' on a function that returns a value really... horrible.

Thanks, Lorenzo