On 05/16/2010 05:48 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > 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... can you move asm/lmb.h down in linux/lmb.h ? so I can put the inline wrapper in arch/x86/include/asm/lmb.h. > > 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