On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 09:28:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-09-18 20:20:18, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 12:04:36PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 11:00 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > The conversion is done using > > > > > > > > sed -i 's@memblock_virt_alloc@memblock_alloc@g' \ > > > > $(git grep -l memblock_virt_alloc) > > > > > > What's the reason to do this? It seems like a lot of churn even if a > > > mechanical change. > > > > I felt that memblock_virt_alloc_ is too long for a prefix, e.g: > > memblock_virt_alloc_node_nopanic, memblock_virt_alloc_low_nopanic. > > > > And for consistency I've changed the memblock_virt_alloc as well. > > I would keep the current API unless the name is terribly misleading or > it can be improved a lot. Neither seems to be the case here. So I would > rather stick with the status quo. I'm ok with the memblock_virt_alloc by itself, but having 'virt' in 'memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_nopanic' and 'memblock_virt_alloc_low_nopanic' reduces code readability in my opinion. Besides, from what I've seen, many users of memblock_phys_alloc can be converted to the virtual variant and then we can just have memblock_alloc everywhere in the end. Currently there are ~70 users of memblock_virt_alloc*, but with the bootmem -> memblock conversion we'll be adding ~140 more. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
