Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: add bytes_to_page_end() helper

[Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>]

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 09:48:32AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2026 at 11:28:05AM -0400, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Sun, May 17, 2026 at 02:34:30PM +0200, Thorsten Blum wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > I've got a series for this
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260303182845.250bb2de@kernel.org/
> >
> > The feedback is surprisingly negative. Please add people from that
> > thread. Maybe you'll be more successful convincing them.

There's a cost to adding yet more super-specific headers where stuff gets hidden
and people don't know where to put what, things quickly become a mess and header
dependencies are already a nightmare.

Also in the case of this helper, I don't see the value in adding a vague,
untyped, confusingly-named macro when PAGE_SIZE - offset_in_page() is perfectly
cromulent and clear in what it's doing?

>
> We always can simply fork, but I truly do not understand the pushback.

Well, be my guest? This isn't a hugely helpful or friendly comment.

> These are simple macros that are way spread in the kernel, "include everything"
> kinda linux/mm.h is not needed in vast majority of the users, hence the
> split is logical step.

Right but that's completely orthogonal to adding this macro?

I'm fine with moving offset_in_page() to e.g. mm_types.h.

But a series that doesn't even give any actual motivation for the change is not
convicing, and we aren't required to just accept any change.

>
> I'm in favour of this series.

OK, I'm not :)

>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>

Thanks, Lorenzo