On 9/4/24 17:11, Mike Rapoport wrote: >> >> Oh, I see. I read it as a expressing taste and so I didn't bother >> replying. And I really dislike single underscore function names so I >> would like to avoid it and it also seems more confusing to me. > > Heh, not quite. I don't like kmem_cache_create_args essentially becoming a > replacement for kmem_cache_create* and I'd prefer __kmem_cache_create > naming. It's __kmem_cache_create_args(). If it didn't have the underscores, I'd agree it might be misleading into being used directly. But like this it doesn't bother me much. > As for the single underscore, I don't have strong feelings about it, but I > do think that it should be renamed to something else than > __kmem_cache_create to leave __kmem_cache_create for the core function.
