On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > local_irq_save() and local_irq_restore() were mistakes :( It's silly to > write what appears to be a C function and then have it operate like > Pascal (warning: I last wrote some Pascal in 66 B.C.). Considered that spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore also follow the style, kernel guys have been accustomed to the usage, I am inclined to keep that as macro, :-) >> IMO, renaming as memalloc_noio_set() might not be better than _save >> because the _set name doesn't indicate that the flag should be stored first. > > You could add __must_check to the function definition to ensure that > all callers save its return value. Yes, we can do that, but the function name is not better than _save from readability. Thanks, -- Ming Lei -- 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>