Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:13:53 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] mm/rmap: introduce and use hugetlb_remove_rmap()
Message-ID: <ZWYf0ZNF9OJgt-mt@x1n>
References: <20231128145205.215026-1-david@redhat.com>
 <20231128145205.215026-3-david@redhat.com>
 <ZWYQeW1dqK6xM1T9@x1n>
 <f1b52042-646d-4679-b375-7550973701f5@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f1b52042-646d-4679-b375-7550973701f5@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 05:39:35PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Quoting from the cover letter:
> 
> "We have hugetlb special-casing/checks in the callers in all cases either
> way already in place: it doesn't make too much sense to call generic-looking
> functions that end up doing hugetlb specific things from hugetlb
> special-cases."

I'll take this one as an example: I think one goal (of my understanding of
the mm community) is to make the generic looking functions keep being
generic, dropping any function named as "*hugetlb*" if possible one day
within that generic implementation.  I said that in my previous reply.

Having that "*hugetlb*" code already in the code base may or may not be a
good reason to further move it upward the stack.

Strong feelings?  No, I don't have.  I'm not knowledged enough to do so.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu