Re: (in)consistency of page/folio function naming

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 22.04.21 05:20, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> I'm going through my patch queue implementing peterz's request to rename
> FolioUptodate() as folio_uptodate().  It's going pretty well, but it
> throws into relief all the places where we're not consistent naming
> existing functions which operate on pages as page_foo().  The folio
> conversion is a great opportunity to sort that out.  Mostly so far, I've
> just done s/page/folio/ on function names, but there's the opportunity to
> regularise a lot of them, eg:
> 
> 	put_page		folio_put
> 	lock_page		folio_lock
> 	lock_page_or_retry	folio_lock_or_retry
> 	rotate_reclaimable_page	folio_rotate_reclaimable
> 	end_page_writeback	folio_end_writeback
> 	clear_page_dirty_for_io	folio_clear_dirty_for_io
> 
> Some of these make a lot of sense -- eg when ClearPageDirty has turned
> into folio_clear_dirty(), having folio_clear_dirty_for_io() looks regular.
> I'm not entirely convinced about folio_lock(), but folio_lock_or_retry()
> makes more sense than lock_page_or_retry().  Ditto _killable() or
> _async().
> 
> Thoughts?

I tend to like prefixes: they directly set the topic.

The only thing I'm concerned is that we end up with

put_page vs. folio_put

which is suboptimal.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb