From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 15:42:29 +0000
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 net-next 3/4] net: introduce common
 dev_page_is_reserved()
In-Reply-To: <20210129183907.2ae5ca3d@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20210127201031.98544-1-alobakin@pm.me>
 <20210127201031.98544-4-alobakin@pm.me>
 <20210129183907.2ae5ca3d@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Message-ID: <20210130154149.8107-1-alobakin@pm.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
List-ID: <intel-wired-lan.osuosl.org>

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 18:39:07 -0800

> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:11:23 +0000 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > + * dev_page_is_reserved - check whether a page can be reused for network Rx
> > + * @page: the page to test
> > + *
> > + * A page shouldn't be considered for reusing/recycling if it was allocated
> > + * under memory pressure or at a distant memory node.
> > + *
> > + * Returns true if this page should be returned to page allocator, false
> > + * otherwise.
> > + */
> > +static inline bool dev_page_is_reserved(const struct page *page)
> 
> Am I the only one who feels like "reusable" is a better term than
> "reserved".

I thought about it, but this will need to inverse the conditions in
most of the drivers. I decided to keep it as it is.
I can redo if "reusable" is preferred.

Regarding "no objectives to take patch 1 through net-next": patches
2-3 depend on it, so I can't put it in a separate series.

Thanks,
Al