Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64/mm: Rename try_pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm

[Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>]

On 13/10/2025 09:02, Linu Cherian wrote:
> With BUG_ON in pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm moved up to higher layer,
> gfp flags is the only difference between try_pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm
> and pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm. Hence rename the "try" version
> to pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm_gfp.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Linu Cherian <linu.cherian@arm.com>

One nit below, but either way:

Reviewed-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>

> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> index 34602339c1bf..ede591346196 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __pgd_pgtable_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, gfp_t gfp,
>  }
>  
>  static phys_addr_t
> -try_pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm(enum pgtable_type pgtable_type, gfp_t gfp)
> +pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm_gfp(enum pgtable_type pgtable_type, gfp_t gfp)
>  {
>  	return __pgd_pgtable_alloc(&init_mm, gfp, pgtable_type);
>  }

nit: Given this renaming, it might be clearer for pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm() to
call pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm_gfp() instead of calling __pgd_pgtable_alloc()
directly?

> @@ -594,7 +594,7 @@ static int split_pmd(pmd_t *pmdp, pmd_t pmd, gfp_t gfp, bool to_cont)
>  	pte_t *ptep;
>  	int i;
>  
> -	pte_phys = try_pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm(TABLE_PTE, gfp);
> +	pte_phys = pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm_gfp(TABLE_PTE, gfp);
>  	if (pte_phys == INVALID_PHYS_ADDR)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	ptep = (pte_t *)phys_to_virt(pte_phys);
> @@ -639,7 +639,7 @@ static int split_pud(pud_t *pudp, pud_t pud, gfp_t gfp, bool to_cont)
>  	pmd_t *pmdp;
>  	int i;
>  
> -	pmd_phys = try_pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm(TABLE_PMD, gfp);
> +	pmd_phys = pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm_gfp(TABLE_PMD, gfp);
>  	if (pmd_phys == INVALID_PHYS_ADDR)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	pmdp = (pmd_t *)phys_to_virt(pmd_phys);