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,