Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-8157-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] page_pool: Rename frag_users to frag_cnt
To: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
CC: <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>, "David
 S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Jakub
 Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20231215073119.543560-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
 <6fddeb22-0906-e04c-3a84-7836bef9ffa2@huawei.com>
 <CAC_iWjLiOdUqLmRHjZmwv9QBsBvYNV=zn30JrRbJa05qMyDBmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <fb0f33d8-d09a-57fc-83b0-ccf152277355@huawei.com>
 <CAC_iWjKH5ZCUwVWc2EisfjeLVF=ko967hqpdAc7G4FdsZCq7NA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d853acde-7d69-c715-4207-fb77da1fb203@huawei.com>
 <CAC_iWjL04RRFCU13yejUONvvY0dzYO1scAzNOC+auWpFDctzAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <0dfffe91-2bd4-2151-cf71-ef29bf562767@huawei.com>
 <CAC_iWjJBcXu=Zz=UtDj1vR-s5+jhFx8GYoYpqOi-bQX7S3XgbA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <560730d0-937c-0497-e823-26c6cf72bff1@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 17:39:33 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.0
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAC_iWjJBcXu=Zz=UtDj1vR-s5+jhFx8GYoYpqOi-bQX7S3XgbA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2023/12/21 16:24, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> 
>> But if we use 'bias' as part of the name, isn't that more reasonable to set
>> both of the bias number to BIAS_MAX initially, and decrement the runtime
>> bais number every time the page is split to more fragments?
> 
> I think it's a matter of taste and how you interpret BIAS_MAX. In any
> case, page_pool_drain_frag() will eventually set the *real* number of
> references. But since the code can get complicated I like the idea of
> making it identical to the mm subsystem tracking.
> 
> Can we just merge v2 and me or you can send the logic inversion
> patches right after. They are orthogonal to the rename anyway

It is fine by me.
And I can send the logic inversion patch if v2 is merged.