From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C76001DE2A7; Mon, 9 Jun 2025 19:51:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749498670; cv=none; b=MJwn6Csbc8k3D4Bz4gFZG/aahFOFWKdMG5GqmhhbwwrzmK1uwYGBDFtNsgYzBJF69eXY0osDUHRt0e1iR7FAsx2ltXNhoxTpHtTYlfTM9/Wmm8mKyoOGz0dSraf2yF8uRciblArmJEH9bWY9NjaT9f3jB/+5tVR+yMcq89XqZ6g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749498670; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NSk9kTu7mQ9UesVjuqh1wiEjX5MHkMHssyrEe7F7CeA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KWOv9tmZRPlY3GNhsN2BfiAZVjfhhm+/Ja8QhT0RTNCXHfiNHRNcZYNoDm/Vuvx1h2xPLK/+fKKFcKs17psJ6WTL9uIct7iEPZLbZ86/g5r7GJti2adEjmYa8vYZiug6k1ee6MEZpwD4MtCTighGlld6px563wuVLkFBKm54N0c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=NPDd4RJx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="NPDd4RJx" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=85TAzXXcGObkIpSOMC2VeDSg1VAoupbTgbj/ahVWIVM=; b=NPDd4RJxANb9b7Jo+/f8FU7asW 9KTgylLu9Lp2yPzwLdKaOgApaomKnGXLZ5XP5KdylzCGEAuug+Xt0F0Bnzu/Vur83Ta5P/SAU2tYY 2nt6jIIgb4s70PWKmxxfDOe9IniTTZJkOhEdsJMjAuxDKz8ki5e0xtxBIdNlGCaD4wZQ/pPI/IWEp Zo6PQly2y6Id7o8ZUo/V3vBUIgGO5n3UeOqt6TsTMi9tVrNf2c6zS95p+2vGCnhkqsf3glNz0uaGQ 2pcbP1Y6c5b59lAPSRpjFuqMa2I4+d0Xdef1a0i9DKpj+1Kfj0CjC4jfvbJO2tXg1zKOGmSL+WhtM yH7S3wwQ==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uOiWK-00000008aqX-1C8K; Mon, 09 Jun 2025 19:51:00 +0000 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 20:51:00 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Shivank Garg , mhiramat@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@kernel.org, irogers@google.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com, kan.liang@linux.intel.com, david@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: use folio_expected_ref_count() helper for reference counting Message-ID: References: <20250609170806.447302-2-shivankg@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 03:31:40PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On June 9, 2025 3:21:20 PM EDT, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 05:08:07PM +0000, Shivank Garg wrote: > >> Replace open-coded folio reference count calculations with the > >> folio_expected_ref_count() helper to improve code maintainability > >> and reduce duplication. > > > >If it needs this much additional commentary, perhaps it's not actually > >clearer? > > I don't know. I tend to over explain as I rather make it totally obvious what is happening. I wouldn't say excessive commentary is necessarily a sign that it's not clearer. That was a Socratic question, not for you to answer. My opinion is that the extra commentary is obfuscatory and should be removed.