From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: Re: [patch 12/21] Xen-paravirt: Allocate and free vmalloc areas Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:41:53 -0800 Message-ID: <45D64141.90307@goop.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Beulich , Chris Wright , Ian Pratt , Andrew Morton , Keir Fraser , Andi Kleen List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Keir Fraser wrote: > It has no other users right now and get_vm_area_sync() would be a > better-named and more generically useful function than alloc_vm_area(). I'm thinking "reserve" might be a better term; "get" generally has the suggestion of a refcount. > get_vm_area_sync(), partnered with existing remove_vm_area(), just seems > much smaller and neater than adding four new functions with a more complex > usage: alloc_vm_area, {lock,unlock}_vm_area, and free_vm_area. Maybe keeping > free_vm_area() too makes sense as its interface is more neatly symmetrical > to that of get_vm_area(). I've already killed the lock/unlock functions. I'll come up with something for the get/allocate/reserve and free functions. J