Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: Split page_has_private() in two to better handle PG_private_2

2021-04-09 Thread David Howells
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > #define PAGE_FLAGS_PRIVATE \ > > (1UL << PG_private | 1UL << PG_private_2) > > I think this should be re-named to be PAGE_FLAGS_CLEANUP, because I > don't think it makes any other sense to "combine" the two PG_private* > bits any more

Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: Split page_has_private() in two to better handle PG_private_2

2021-04-08 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:15 PM David Howells wrote: > > mm: Split page_has_private() in two to better handle PG_private_2 >From a look through the patch and some (limited) thinking about it, I like the patch. I think it clarifies the two very different cases, and makes it clear that one is about

[RFC][PATCH] mm: Split page_has_private() in two to better handle PG_private_2

2021-04-08 Thread David Howells
Hi Willy, Linus, How about this to handle the situation with PG_private_2? I think it handles things according to Linus's suggestion. David --- mm: Split page_has_private() in two to better handle PG_private_2 Split page_has_private() into two functions: (1) page_needs_cleanup() to find out i