On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:33:05PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 01:16:07PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 01:52:48PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > Whether the API is better is debatable. As I said, almost no drivers use > > > the new XArray interface, and perhaps partly because the new interface > > > isn't as intuitive as has been claimed (e.g. xa_load() instead of > > > ida_find()). And IDR/IDA isn't marked/documented as deprecated as far as > > > I know. > > > > I can't just slap a 'deprecated' attribute on it. That'll cause a > > storm of warnings. What would you suggest I do to warn people that > > this interface is deprecated and I would like to remove it? > > I'd at least expect a suggestion in the IDR documentation to consider > using XArray instead. Fair enough. +The IDR interface is deprecated; please use the `XArray`_ instead. Just running that through htmldocs to make sure I've got the syntax right, and then I'll commit it. > > Why do you think that idr_find() is more intuitive than xa_load()? > > The 'find' verb means that you search for something. But it doesn't > > search for anything; it just returns the pointer at that index. > > 'find' should return the next non-NULL pointer at-or-above a given > > index. > > We're looking up a minor number which may or may not exist. "Find" (or > "lookup" or "search") seems to describe this much better than "load" > (even if that may better reflect the implementation of XArray). It's not the _implementation_ that it fits, it's the _idiom_. The implementation is a lookup in a trie. The idiom of the XArray is that it's a sparse array, and so it's a load. > And no, I would not expect a find implementation to return the next > entry if the requested entry does not exist (and neither does idr_find() > or radix_tree_lookup()). Oh dear. You've been corrupted by the bad naming of the IDR functions ;-(
