On 3/15/23 1:14?PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 16:08:06 +0100 > "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> This small series is based on Paul's "dev" branch. Head is 6002817348a1c610dc1b1c01ff81654cdec12be4 >> it renames a single argument of k[v]free_rcu() to its new k[v]free_rcu_mightsleep() name. >> >> 1. >> The problem is that, recently we have run into a precedent when >> a user intended to give a second argument to kfree_rcu() API but >> forgot to do it in a code so a call became as a single argument >> of kfree_rcu() API. >> >> 2. >> Such mistyping can lead to hidden bags where sleeping is forbidden. >> >> 3. >> _mightsleep() prefix gives much more information for which contexts >> it can be used for. > > My honest opinion is that I hate that name "kvfree_rcu_mightsleep()" ;-) > > As I honestly don't know why it might sleep. > > I didn't care about the name before, but now that it's touching code I > maintain I do care ;-) > > Why not call it: > > kvfree_rcu_synchronize() > > ? > > As that is much more descriptive of what it does. Especially since these > ugly names are popping up in my code because kvfree_rcu() replaced a > rcu_synchronize() in the first place. This was my main complaint too, kvfree_rcu_mightsleep() is an absolutely horrible name for an API... But nobody seemed to care about that! I like the _synchronize() suggestion, as it matches other RCU naming. -- Jens Axboe
