Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] mm/page-flags: remove PG_private

[Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>]

On 1 Sep 2026, at 11:55, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 15:25:37 -0400
> Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/include/trace/events/mmflags.h b/include/trace/events/mmflags.h
>> index 935893e5ea53b..caf090cd6f85e 100644
>> --- a/include/trace/events/mmflags.h
>> +++ b/include/trace/events/mmflags.h
>> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ TRACE_DEFINE_ENUM(___GFP_LAST_BIT);
>>  	DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(owner_2),					\
>>  	DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(arch_1),					\
>>  	DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(reserved),					\
>> -	DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(private),					\
>> +	{ 1UL << __PG_folio, "folio" },					\
>>  	DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(private_2),					\
>>  	DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(writeback),					\
>>  	DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(head),					\
>
> Hmm, just for consistency sake, can we create a:
>
>  #define __DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(_name) { 1UL <<  __PG_##_name, __stringify(_name) }
>
> Which is similar to:
>
>  #define DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(_name) { 1UL <<  PG_##_name, __stringify(_name) }
>
> But adds the "__" to the name. Then the above would look like:
>
> 	DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(reserved),					\
> 	__DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(folio),					\
> 	DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(private_2),					\
> 	DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME(writeback),					\
>
> Where the __DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME() with the "__" still stands out, but the
> code looks better than open coding it in the middle and making one wonder
> why it was open coded. (It took me a bit to noticed the "__" difference.)
>

No problem.

BTW, the plan is to add PG_folio after this series is picked up by Andrew/David.
So the new __DEF_PAGEFLAG_NAME() will have no user then and can be deleted.
It should be fine, right?

Best Regards,
Yan, Zi