Hi, On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 8:47 AM <duoming@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 16:58:01 +0200 Greg KH wrote: > > No, that is not necessary. Do the work now so that there is no flag day > > and you don't have to worry about new users, it will all "just work". > > Do you mean we should replace dev_set_name() in dev_coredumpm() to some other > functions that could work both in interrupt context and process context? No. I believe the suggestion is that rather than change the signature for dev_coredumpv() (which means everyone has to agree on the new signature on day 1), you should introduce a new API, like dev_coredumpv_noatomic() (I'm not good at naming [1]) with the signature you want, and then migrate users over. Once we have a release with no users of the old API, we drop it. There are plenty of examples of the kernel community doing similar transitions. You can search around for examples, but a quick search of my own shows something like this: https://lwn.net/Articles/735887/ (In particular, timer_setup() was introduced, and all setup_timer() users were migrated to it within a release or two.) Brian [1] Seriously, dev_coredumpv_noatomic() is not a name I want to see last very long. Maybe some other trivial modification? Examples: dev_core_dumpv() dev_coredump_v() device_coredumpv() ...
