Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: rename reclaim_pages() to reclaim_folios()
References: <20230415092716.61970-1-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
        <ZDrK9R9wLlfrUWMZ@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2023 10:27:12 +0800
In-Reply-To: <ZDrK9R9wLlfrUWMZ@casper.infradead.org> (Matthew Wilcox's message
        of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:04:05 +0100")
Message-ID: <87a5z7w8e7.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
Precedence: bulk

Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> writes:

> On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 05:27:16PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>> As commit a83f0551f496 ("mm/vmscan: convert reclaim_pages() to use
>> a folio") changes the arg from page_list to folio_list, but not
>> the defination, let's correct it and rename it to reclaim_folios too.
>
> I didn't bother.  It's not inaccurate; we're reclaiming the pages
> in the folios.

What's the general rule about renaming "pages" to "folios" in function
names?  I am thinking whether it's necessary to rename migrate_pages()
to migrate_folios().  It's unnecessary?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying