Re: [PATCH] mm/damon: rename primitives to operations

[Enze Li <lienze@kylinos.cn>]

Hi SeongJae,

On Sat, May 24 2025 at 09:29:10 AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote:

> Hi Enze,
>
> On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:55:36 +0800 Enze Li <lienze@kylinos.cn> wrote:
>
>> The word 'primitive' is not explicit and has been deprecated in DAMON's
>> context since commit f7d911c39cbb ("mm/damon: rename damon_primitives to
>> damon_operations").  To make the code easier to be understand, this
>> commit renames remaining 'primitives' to 'operations' in header comments
>> of DAMON source files.
>
> Thank you for this patch!  The description makes sense to me.
>
> The title makes me bit confused, though.  By reading it, I was assuming this
> patch is changing some code.  But this is changing only comments.  Could you
> please make the title more clearly specify that?  E.g., "fix outdated comments
> for monitoring primitives"?
>
>> 
>> Fixes: f7d911c39cbb ("mm/damon: rename damon_primitives to damon_operations")
>> Signed-off-by: Enze Li <lienze@kylinos.cn>
>> ---
>>  mm/damon/modules-common.c | 2 +-
>>  mm/damon/modules-common.h | 2 +-
>>  mm/damon/ops-common.c     | 2 +-
>>  mm/damon/ops-common.h     | 2 +-
>>  mm/damon/paddr.c          | 2 +-
>>  mm/damon/sysfs-common.c   | 2 +-
>>  mm/damon/sysfs-common.h   | 2 +-
>>  mm/damon/vaddr.c          | 2 +-
>>  8 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> But, the term (primitives) on the comments of the files means the DAMON
> monitoring primitives (old name of DAMON operations) only in {p,v}addr.c files.
> On the comment of other files, the term means code for basic and common uses.
>
> Using 'Operations' term on the files look ok to me.  But in the case, the
> commit message may better to slightly be updated to clarify this.
>
> Just keeping those files to use 'Primitives' term, or using a more neutral
> term, say, Code (e.g., Common Code for DAMON Modules) could also be options, in
> my opinion.
>
> I have no strong preference among these three options.  Please pick what you
> prefer.

Thanks for your suggestion.  It seems to me that using 'Code' term is a
reasonable choice.

>
> Could you please revise as abovely suggested and resend?

I've sent a v2 to the current thread, many thanks for your review and
suggestions!  Please let me know if further adjustments are needed.

BR,
Enze

>
>
> Thanks,
> SJ
>
> [...]