From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18188C6FD1C for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:13:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Pj9P22f4Bz3f98 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 03:13:10 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=oKkYeaYF; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=nathanl@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=oKkYeaYF; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (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 4Pj9Mx2xJwz3cjM for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 03:12:13 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 32NF80lH022777; Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:12:03 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type; s=pp1; bh=oSJEVLwEKqQwTZPvAIjerxVBtlI2bT9tUq/P1hkllzw=; b=oKkYeaYFpdQzukV79DS0LyuS2Vz3Oa1Z+CXoVABqn6mS+ZYa/O+wwUxLoiySZ+SwLpEc stZoBW0xdiQ8LMUXUwB3t6jY3gPGxYdeeDo+capF5mbLXlUXr83WclwelOvr0yFzmfww INhNaLIUp86bPBD5YzFTSjv6UD3tnxcIkxEQRkCtLDcBmkE/Itfe59n/n+OtdW3BEE/f 8Q48Wyl6CM1ADUUSk4x7nbAZI+ayc+cB6cN62Rxwt3qqHsqqTHpL2QIFh5wlbEdriPex TzNMvKcjR3Fx9yFbNh3FE0Cn41CWtXDw1j/SM6REUr37A1WTn5zub2k5HNkZTcIZa0cB 5w== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pge77tm84-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:12:02 +0000 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 32NEVKUs036320; Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:12:02 GMT Received: from ppma01wdc.us.ibm.com (fd.55.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.85.253]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pge77tm7k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:12:02 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01wdc.us.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 32ND8nVD012813; Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:12:01 GMT Received: from smtprelay04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([9.208.129.114]) by ppma01wdc.us.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pd4x76tds-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:12:00 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.230]) by smtprelay04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 32NGBxhp53674396 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:11:59 GMT Received: from smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C4658062; Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:11:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1695D5805D; Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:11:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.41.178.242]) by smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:11:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Nathan Lynch To: Andrew Donnellan , Michael Ellerman , Nicholas Piggin , Christophe Leroy Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] powerpc/rtas: rename va_rtas_call_unlocked() to va_rtas_call() In-Reply-To: <84edcbaacd87e84997cd77664048799a3f93d169.camel@linux.ibm.com> References: <20230220-rtas-queue-for-6-4-v1-0-010e4416f13f@linux.ibm.com> <20230220-rtas-queue-for-6-4-v1-5-010e4416f13f@linux.ibm.com> <84edcbaacd87e84997cd77664048799a3f93d169.camel@linux.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:11:58 -0500 Message-ID: <87h6ub78hd.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: XuqutOKwDFKnOpofaluIEvXYKAgzoI7r X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: kuK9mClv2bRC-EwoPnt69zynvp22elSu X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.254,Aquarius:18.0.942,Hydra:6.0.573,FMLib:17.11.170.22 definitions=2023-03-22_21,2023-03-23_02,2023-02-09_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=859 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2303150002 definitions=main-2303230118 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Tyrel Datwyler , Scott Cheloha , Laurent Dufour , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Nick Child Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Andrew Donnellan writes: > On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:33 -0600, Nathan Lynch via B4 Relay wrote: >> From: Nathan Lynch >> >> The function name va_rtas_call_unlocked() is confusing: it may be >> called with or without rtas_lock held. Rename it to va_rtas_call(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch > > Not a huge fan of the name, the va_ suggests that the only difference > between this function and rtas_call() is the varargs handling. Perhaps > something like __rtas_call()? I would be more inclined to agree if va_rtas_call() were a public API, like rtas_call(). But it's not, so the convention you're appealing to shouldn't inform the expectations of external users of the rtas_* APIs, at least. __rtas_call() conveys strictly less information than va_rtas_call() IMO. Most functions in the kernel that take a va_list have a "v" worked into their name somehow.