Hello, On 04/15/2010 05:00 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > Yes. I don't like it. > With it, someone who does care about API usage uses alloc_pages_exact_node but > someone who don't have a time or careless uses alloc_pages_node. > It would make API fragmentation and not good. > Maybe we can weed out -1 and make new API which is more clear. > > * struct page *alloc_pages_any_node(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order); > * struct page *alloc_pages_exact_node(int nid, gfp_mask, unsigned int order); I'm not an expert on that part of the kernel but isn't alloc_pages_any_node() identical to alloc_pages_exact_node()? All that's necessary to do now is to weed out callers which pass in negative nid to alloc_pages_node(), right? If so, why not just do a clean sweep of alloc_pages_node() users and update them so that they don't call in w/ -1 nid and add WARN_ON_ONCE() in alloc_pages_node()? Is there any reason to keep both variants going forward? If not, introducing new API just to weed out invalid usages seems like an overkill. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>