On Fri 07-09-18 11:42:12, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:46:27PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 06-09-18 16:39:58, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:01:02PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Thu 06-09-18 15:43:21, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 09:28:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > On Wed 05-09-18 20:20:18, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 12:04:36PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 11:00 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conversion is done using > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sed -i 's@memblock_virt_alloc@memblock_alloc@g' \ > > > > > > > > > $(git grep -l memblock_virt_alloc) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the reason to do this? It seems like a lot of churn even if a > > > > > > > > mechanical change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I felt that memblock_virt_alloc_ is too long for a prefix, e.g: > > > > > > > memblock_virt_alloc_node_nopanic, memblock_virt_alloc_low_nopanic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And for consistency I've changed the memblock_virt_alloc as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would keep the current API unless the name is terribly misleading or > > > > > > it can be improved a lot. Neither seems to be the case here. So I would > > > > > > rather stick with the status quo. > > > > > > > > > > I'm ok with the memblock_virt_alloc by itself, but having 'virt' in > > > > > 'memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_nopanic' and 'memblock_virt_alloc_low_nopanic' > > > > > reduces code readability in my opinion. > > > > > > > > Well, is _nopanic really really useful in the name. Do we even need/want > > > > implicit panic/nopanic semantic? The code should rather check for the > > > > return value and decide depending on the code path. I suspect removing > > > > panic/nopanic would make the API slightly lighter. > > > > > > I agree that panic/nopanic should be removed. But I prefer to start with > > > equivalent replacement to make it as automated as possible and update > > > memblock API when the dust settles a bit. > > > > Yes, I agree with that approach. But that also doesn't justify the > > renaming > > Well, the renaming is automated :) Yes, it is. It also adds churn to the code so I tend to prefer an existing naming unless it is completely misleading or incomprehensible. Is this something to lose sleep over. Absolutely not! Does it make sense to discuss further? I do not think so. If you strongly believe that the renaming is a good thing then just do it. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
