Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: rename PTE_MASK to PTE_PFN_MASK

[Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>]

Hi,

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:

> * Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
>
>> Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> writes:
>> >
>> >> Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> >>> PTE_PFN_MASK is not symmetric to PAGE_MASK.
>> >>
>> >> No, it isn't.  Is there anything about the name that suggests that it
>> >> should be?  PTE_PFN_MASK is for operating on pteval_t-typed values
>> >> extracted from ptes; PAGE_MASK is for operating on addresses.
>> >
>> > I meant the naming scheme, not the functionality.
>> >
>> > The thing PAGE_MASK and PTE_MASK have in common is that they are masks
>> > and their names indicate what is masked away when applied.
>> >
>> > So PAGE_MASK suggests that it masks out page details.  And PTE_MASK
>> > suggests that it masks out PTE details.
>> >
>> > PTE_PFN_MASK masks suggests that it masks out the flags, according 
>> > to the existing naming convention.  But it does the opposite.
>> 
>> As you explained me how PAGE_MASK was meant, scratch the above ;)
>
> btw., feel free to send a patch that adds more comments that makes it 
> obvious at first sight if someone takes a look at the defines.

I will do that!

	Hannes