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).
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
