On 04/19/2010 12:54 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: >> alloc_pages is the same as alloc_pages_any_node so why have it? > > I don't want to force using '_node' postfix on UMA users. > Maybe they don't care getting page from any node and event don't need to > know about _NODE_. Yeah, then, remove alloc_pages_any_node(). I can't really see the point of any_/exact_node. alloc_pages() and alloc_pages_node() are fine and in line with other functions. Why change it? >> Why remove it? If you want to get rid of -1 handling then check all the > > alloc_pages_node have multiple meaning as you said. So some of users > misuses that API. I want to clear intention of user. The name is fine. Just clean up the users and make the intended usage clear in documentation and implementation (ie. trigger a big fat warning) and make all the callers use named constants instead of -1 for special meanings. 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>