On 1 Sep 2026, at 11:55, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 15:25:37 -0400 > Zi Yan <[email protected]> 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
