From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/6] x86/efi: Remove __init attribute from memory mapping functions Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 09:12:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20180903071207.GA10249@zn.tnic> References: <1535881594-25469-1-git-send-email-sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com> <1535881594-25469-3-git-send-email-sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com> <20180902105602.GA19431@zn.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" Cc: "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Neri, Ricardo" , "matt@codeblueprint.co.uk" , Lee Chun-Yi , Al Stone , Ingo Molnar , Andy Lutomirski , Bhupesh Sharma , Peter Zijlstra , Ard Biesheuvel List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 05:03:56AM +0000, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth wrote: > Hmm.. thought that __efi_init might be confusing with the normal __init attribute How would that be confusing? It has "__efi" prepended?! All I'm saying is, if you're going to define your own function attributes, do them generic and short. "_fixup" is too specific IMO. It also enlarges function definitions unnecessarily. With "__efi_init" you already denote that it is a special attribute which has relevance in the EFI code only. What you do about it - the *fixup* - is the thing you do with the attribute. But you don't have to have the "what you do" in the attribute name too. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.