Hello, On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:21:36 -0700 Brian Norris wrote: > 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() > ... Thank you very much for your timer and suggestions! Best regards, Duoming Zhou
