On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 09:42:59PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 06:30:26PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > > On 3/28/19 6:17 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 09:42:31AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > > >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 04:28:47PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > > >>> On 3/28/19 4:21 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > >>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 03:40:42PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > > >>>>> On 3/28/19 3:31 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 03:19:06PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 3/28/19 3:12 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 02:59:50PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 3/25/19 7:40 AM, jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> [...] > > >> Indeed I did not realize there is an hmm "pfn" until I saw this function: > > >> > > >> /* > > >> * hmm_pfn_from_pfn() - create a valid HMM pfn value from pfn > > >> * @range: range use to encode HMM pfn value > > >> * @pfn: pfn value for which to create the HMM pfn > > >> * Returns: valid HMM pfn for the pfn > > >> */ > > >> static inline uint64_t hmm_pfn_from_pfn(const struct hmm_range *range, > > >> unsigned long pfn) > > >> > > >> So should this patch contain some sort of helper like this... maybe? > > >> > > >> I'm assuming the "hmm_pfn" being returned above is the device pfn being > > >> discussed here? > > >> > > >> I'm also thinking calling it pfn is confusing. I'm not advocating a new type > > >> but calling the "device pfn's" "hmm_pfn" or "device_pfn" seems like it would > > >> have shortened the discussion here. > > >> > > > > > > That helper is also use today by nouveau so changing that name is not that > > > easy it does require the multi-release dance. So i am not sure how much > > > value there is in a name change. > > > > > > > Once the dust settles, I would expect that a name change for this could go > > via Andrew's tree, right? It seems incredible to claim that we've built something > > that effectively does not allow any minor changes! > > > > I do think it's worth some *minor* trouble to improve the name, assuming that we > > can do it in a simple patch, rather than some huge maintainer-level effort. > > Change to nouveau have to go through nouveau tree so changing name means: > - release N add function with new name, maybe make the old function just > a wrapper to the new function > - release N+1 update user to use the new name > - release N+2 remove the old name > > So it is do-able but it is painful so i rather do that one latter that now > as i am sure people will then complain again about some little thing and it > will post pone this whole patchset on that new bit. To avoid post-poning > RDMA and bunch of other patchset that build on top of that i rather get > this patchset in and then do more changes in the next cycle. > > This is just a capacity thing. Also for clarity changes to API i am doing in this patchset is to make the ODP convertion easier and thus they bring a real hard value. Renaming those function is esthetic, i am not saying it is useless, i am saying it does not have the same value as those other changes and i would rather not miss another merge window just for esthetic changes. Cheers, Jérôme
