Hello, On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:17:21PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > __init_kthread_worker() -> __kthread_init_worker() > init_kthread_worker() -> kthread_init_worker() > init_kthread_work() -> kthread_init_work() > insert_kthread_work() -> kthread_insert_work() > queue_kthread_work() -> kthread_queue_work() > flush_kthread_work() -> kthread_flush_work() > flush_kthread_worker() -> kthread_flush_worker() I wonder whether the subsystem name here is more the whole kthread_worker rather than just kthread but I can't think of a good single syllable abbrev for it. It's a bikeshedding anyway. > Note that the names of DEFINE_KTHREAD_WORK*() macros stay > as they are. It is common that the "DEFINE_" prefix has > precedence over the subsystem names. > > INIT_() macros are similar to DEFINE_. Therefore this patch > renames: > > KTHREAD_WORKER_INIT() -> INIT_KTHREAD_WORKER() > KTHREAD_WORK_INIT() -> INIT_KTHREAD_WORK() So, they're different. In the above cases, INIT doesn't stand for the verb INITIALIZE but its noun form INITIALIZER. These aren't operations and thus different from DEFINE_XXX(). kthread_init_worker = kthread: initialize worker KTHREAD_WORKER_INIT = kthread: worker initializer I think it makes a lot more sense to keep _INIT at the end for these. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>