Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm/page_alloc: Add a bulk page allocator

From: Mel Gorman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 14:15:44 +0000

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:43:31PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:46:15AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > +int __alloc_pages_bulk_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, int preferred_nid,
> > +				nodemask_t *nodemask, int nr_pages,
> > +				struct list_head *list);
> 
> For the next revision, can you ditch the '_nodemask' part of the name?
> Andrew just took this patch from me:
> 

Ok, the first three patches are needed from that series. For convenience,
I'm going to post the same series with the rest of the patches as a
pre-requisite to avoid people having to take patches out of mmotm to test.
For review purposes, they can be ignored.

> > <SNIP>
> >
> > @@ -4919,6 +4934,9 @@ static inline bool prepare_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> >  		struct alloc_context *ac, gfp_t *alloc_mask,
> >  		unsigned int *alloc_flags)
> >  {
> > +	gfp_mask &= gfp_allowed_mask;
> > +	*alloc_mask = gfp_mask;
> 
> Also I renamed alloc_mask to alloc_gfp.
> 

It then becomes obvious that prepare_alloc_pages does not share the same
naming convention as __alloc_pages(). In an effort to keep the naming
convention consistent, I updated the patch to also rename gfp_mask to
gfp in prepare_alloc_pages.

As a complete aside, I don't actually like the gfp name and would have
preferred gfp_flags because GFP is just an acronym and the context of the
variable is that it's a set of GFP Flags. The mask naming was wrong I admit
because it's not a mask but I'm not interested in naming the bike shed :)

Thanks for pointing this out early because it would have been a merge
headache!

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs