From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/37] lmb: Add lmb_find_area() Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 10:48:49 +1000 Message-ID: <1274057329.21352.709.camel@pasglop> References: <1273866363-14249-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <1273866363-14249-8-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <1273876749.21352.645.camel@pasglop> <4BEDD7D4.90002@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:33388 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750785Ab0EQAuf (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2010 20:50:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BEDD7D4.90002@oracle.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Yinghai Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , David Miller , Linus Torvalds , Johannes Weiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 16:08 -0700, Yinghai wrote: > how about > lmb_reserve_area ==> lmb_reserve_range > lmb_free_area ==> lmb_free_range I completely fail to see why you still need those two. They are exactly the same thing as lmb_reserve() and lmb_free(), just with a slightly different prototype. > or leave them that way, later replace them lmb_reserve and lmb_free > one by one? Nah, if you have some use of the wrappers to ease the transition from the existing x86 code, then just make up a couple of inline wrappers somewhere inside the x86 code. You may not even want to call it lmb_* at all... But here, I'll let Thomas and Peter decide what to do, it's really x86 stuff at this stage. I don't want to see two subtlely different APIs at the LMB level doing the same thing. Cheers, Ben.