Re: virt_to_offset()

["David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:21:25 -0700
David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> It's a bad choice of name.  X_to_Y() normally implies that X and Y are
> basically different representations of the same thing (e.g., a page
> pointer vs. a virtual address).  However, virt_to_pageoff() is a
> one-way translation, so it's misleading.

By your arguments, virt_to_page() is also misnamed.  It is not possible
to take the page pointer result and use that to get back to the virtual
address input to virt_to_page().

I think as a first step, it's more important to have consistent names
for the two translation routines used.

As a secondary step, we can fix virt_to_*() naming, as appropriate.

Ok?