From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4269t92LWFzF3Sp for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 18:42:25 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w878cwvP084766 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 04:42:22 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2mbmy9aqk6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 04:42:22 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 09:42:20 +0100 Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:42:12 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Michal Hocko Cc: Rob Herring , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , davem@davemloft.net, Greg Kroah-Hartman , mingo@redhat.com, Michael Ellerman , paul.burton@mips.com, Thomas Gleixner , tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/29] memblock: remove _virt from APIs returning virtual address References: <1536163184-26356-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1536163184-26356-8-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180905172017.GA2203@rapoport-lnx> <20180906072800.GN14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180906124321.GD27492@rapoport-lnx> <20180906130102.GY14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180906133958.GM27492@rapoport-lnx> <20180906134627.GZ14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180906134627.GZ14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> Message-Id: <20180907084211.GA19153@rapoport-lnx> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:46:27PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 06-09-18 16:39:58, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:01:02PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 06-09-18 15:43:21, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 09:28:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Wed 05-09-18 20:20:18, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 12:04:36PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 11:00 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conversion is done using > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sed -i 's@memblock_virt_alloc@memblock_alloc@g' \ > > > > > > > > $(git grep -l memblock_virt_alloc) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the reason to do this? It seems like a lot of churn even if a > > > > > > > mechanical change. > > > > > > > > > > > > I felt that memblock_virt_alloc_ is too long for a prefix, e.g: > > > > > > memblock_virt_alloc_node_nopanic, memblock_virt_alloc_low_nopanic. > > > > > > > > > > > > And for consistency I've changed the memblock_virt_alloc as well. > > > > > > > > > > I would keep the current API unless the name is terribly misleading or > > > > > it can be improved a lot. Neither seems to be the case here. So I would > > > > > rather stick with the status quo. > > > > > > > > I'm ok with the memblock_virt_alloc by itself, but having 'virt' in > > > > 'memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_nopanic' and 'memblock_virt_alloc_low_nopanic' > > > > reduces code readability in my opinion. > > > > > > Well, is _nopanic really really useful in the name. Do we even need/want > > > implicit panic/nopanic semantic? The code should rather check for the > > > return value and decide depending on the code path. I suspect removing > > > panic/nopanic would make the API slightly lighter. > > > > I agree that panic/nopanic should be removed. But I prefer to start with > > equivalent replacement to make it as automated as possible and update > > memblock API when the dust settles a bit. > > Yes, I agree with that approach. But that also doesn't justify the > renaming Well, the renaming is automated :) Anyway, we can continue arguing about keeping or removing _virt regardless of the bootmem -> memblock change. I'll redo the set with memblock_virt_alloc and we can resume the argument later on :) > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.