Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] mm: fix off-by-one error in VMA count limit checks

...

...

Would this be an acceptable path forward?

Possibly, if others like it: my concern was to end a misunderstanding (I'm generally much too slow to get involved in cleanups).

Though given that the sysctl is named "max_map_count", I'm not very keen on renaming everything else from map_count to vma_count (and of course I'm not suggesting to rename the sysctl).

I still believe vma_count is a clearer name for the field, given some existing comments already refer to it as vma count. The inconsistency between vma_count and sysctl_max_map_count can be abstracted away; and the sysctl made non-global.

Yes, to me that part makes perfect sense (taste differs as we know).