On Wed 12-03-14 10:53:00, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 01:52:13PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 11-03-14 21:28:29, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > [...] > > > @@ -3919,20 +3919,21 @@ out: > > > return ret; > > > } > > > > > > -/* > > > - * Charge the memory controller for page usage. > > > - * Return > > > - * 0 if the charge was successful > > > - * < 0 if the cgroup is over its limit > > > - */ > > > -static int mem_cgroup_charge_common(struct page *page, struct mm_struct > > > *mm, > > > - gfp_t gfp_mask, enum charge_type ctype) > > > +int mem_cgroup_newpage_charge(struct page *page, > > > + struct mm_struct *mm, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > > > s/mem_cgroup_newpage_charge/mem_cgroup_anon_charge/ ? > > > > Would be a better name? The patch would be bigger but the name more > > apparent... > > I wouldn't be opposed to fixing those names at all, but I think that > is out of the scope of this patch.
OK. > Want to send one? will do > mem_cgroup_charge_anon() would be a good name, but then we should also > rename mem_cgroup_cache_charge() to mem_cgroup_charge_file() to match. Yes that sounds good to me. > Or charge_private() vs. charge_shared()... anon vs. file is easier to follow but I do not have any preference here. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
