Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: cleanup clear_not_present_full_ptes() and rename to clear_non_present_ptes()

[Oscar Salvador (SUSE)]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 01:50:49PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> Let's clean it up a bit:
> 
> (1) There is no need to pass "full" anymore.
> 
> (2) No architecture overwrites it, and there isn't really a good reason
>     to do so when dealing with non-resent PTEs.
> 
> (3) While at it, call it "non-present", similar to copy_nonpresent_pte()
>     and zap_nonpresent_ptes().
> 
> It's a shame that we have clear_non_present_ptes() correspond to
> pte_clear() and clear_ptes() correspond to ptep_get_and_clear*().
> 
> Likely we should rename pte_clear() to pte_clear_nonpresent() or sth.
> like that, to make it clearer that it is usually the wrong interface
> for dealing with present PTEs.

Is that always the case, that pte_clear() is only used on non-present
entries? Or there maybe users that do not care about the current value
and just want it to nuke?

I guess that such a renaming would have to first audit that all current
users obey that? Othen than that, is there anything else stopping us
from doing so?

> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@xxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador (SUSE) <osalvador@xxxxxxxxxx>

 

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs