Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] mm/page-flags: remove PG_private

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 15:25:37 -0400
Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.)

-- Steve