Hey Steve, On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 6:26 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > Also "mightsleep" means just that -- *might*. That covers the fact > > that sleeping may not happen ;-). > > Yes, and even though you are doubtful of it not ever having a non-sleep > implementation, there is still a chance that there might be something > someday. Perhaps if it never sleeps, then we would introduce back the single-arg kvfree_rcu() and delete the kvfree_rcu_mightsleep()` at that point, since it would not serve any purpose. > > This is just my opinion and I will defer to Uladzislau, Paul and you > > on how to proceed. Another option is "cansleep" which has the same > > number of characters as headless. I don't believe expecting users to > > read comments is practical, since we did already have comments and > > there was a bug in the usage that triggered this whole series. > > The point of "headless" is that is the rational for this version of > kvfree_rcu(). It doesn't have a head. That's an API name that users care > about. > > Why not call it kvfree_rcu_alloc() ? It allocates right? Sure, but one can say now that allocating is an implementation detail? ;-) Also, it may sound strange to have 'free' and 'alloc' in the same name. > We have might_sleep() in lots of places. In fact, the default is things > might sleep. We don't need to call it out. That's what the might_sleep() > call is for. Usually it's the non sleep version that is special. > > We could call the normal kvfree_rcu() "kvfree_rcu_inatomic()" ;-) Heh, I actually like 'inatomic' alot ;-) > But I guess that would be a bigger change. > True. thanks, - Joel
