On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 17:37:30 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That does work, and I am guessing that the size increase is not a big > problem for you there. Well, I was fine with it as long as it stayed in the headers, where ugliness is warmly welcomed. Just ask all the #ifdefs. > > > That's a cop out, just removing the one case you care about. Fact is > > the naming is awful, and the 1/2 argument thing is making it worse. > > If a big change is warranted, why not do it right and ACTUALLY > > get it right? > > You both do realize that the kvfree_rcu_mightsleep() definition is > already in mainline, right? > > Anyway, to sum up, kvfree_rcu_mightsleep()--or whatever the entire > community eventually decides to name it--can do any of the following: > > 1. Put the pointer into an already allocated array of pointers. > > 2. Allocate a new array of pointers, have the allocation succeed > without sleeping, then put the pointer into an already allocated > array of pointers. > > 3. Allocate a new array of pointers, have the allocation succeed > after sleeping, then put the pointer into an already allocated > array of pointers. > > 4. Attempt to allocate a new array of pointers, have the allocation > fail (presumably after sleeping), then invoke synchronize_rcu() > directly. > > Too much fun! ;-) > kvfree_rcu_kitchen_sink() ? kvfree_rcu_goldie_locks()? I honestly like the name "headless" as that perfectly describes the difference between kvfree_rcu(arg1, arg2) and kvfree_rcu(arg1). Whereas mightsleep() is confusing to me because it doesn't tell me why kvfree_rcu() has two args and kvfree_rcu_mightsleep() has only one. Usually, code that has two sleep variants is about limiting the functionality of the atomic friendly one. -- Steve
