Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: rename walk_page_range_mm()

[David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)]

On 09.11.25 12:16, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> Make it clear we're referencing an unsafe variant of this function
> explicitly.
>
> This is laying the foundation for exposing more such functions and
> maintaining a consistent naming scheme.

IIUC, the "unsafe" variants only bypass the check_ops_valid() check, 
correct?

Staring at the code, I wonder if we should then rename check_ops_valid() 
to something like "are_ops_safe()" [or something similar along the lines 
of safe vs. unsafe]

Because now we will have valid vs. unsafe which is a bit confusing, at 
least for me.

--
Cheers

David