On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 16:08 -0700, Yinghai wrote: > how about > lmb_reserve_area ==> lmb_reserve_range > lmb_free_area ==> lmb_free_range I completely fail to see why you still need those two. They are exactly the same thing as lmb_reserve() and lmb_free(), just with a slightly different prototype. > or leave them that way, later replace them lmb_reserve and lmb_free > one by one? Nah, if you have some use of the wrappers to ease the transition from the existing x86 code, then just make up a couple of inline wrappers somewhere inside the x86 code. You may not even want to call it lmb_* at all... But here, I'll let Thomas and Peter decide what to do, it's really x86 stuff at this stage. I don't want to see two subtlely different APIs at the LMB level doing the same thing. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
