On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 05:53:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:15:49PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 1:34 PM Stanislaw Gruszka > > <stanislaw.gruszka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 03:35:20PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > > Please CC me on future revisions. > > > > > > > > As of 6.2, the prandom namespace is *only* for predictable randomness. > > > > There's no need to rename anything. So nack on this patch 1/5. > > > > > > It is not obvious (for casual developers like me) that p in prandom > > > stands for predictable. Some renaming would be useful IMHO. > > > > Renaming makes backports more complicated, because stable teams will > > have to 'undo' name changes. > > Stable teams are already overwhelmed by the amount of backports, and > > silly merge conflicts. > > > > Take another example : > > > > u64 timecounter_read(struct timecounter *tc) > > > > You would think this function would read the timecounter, right ? > > > > Well, it _updates_ many fields from @tc, so a 'better name' would also > > be useful. > > Right, at some point we become into the world of > > #define true 0 > > because... (read below) > > > linux kernel is not for casual readers. > > P.S. I believe you applied a common sense and in some cases > the renames are necessary. And before you become to a wrong conclusion by reading between the lines, no, I'm not taking either side (to rename or not to rename) in this case. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
