Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m35-v6csp1533584imm; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 01:46:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZDcqxCgNAwZgzxHIYQzBhGto/90/QDoDESj3dmAW3TkIxZZqbkJCXR1Dr+Ffsv0gWdIwOZ X-Received: by 2002:a62:b20c:: with SMTP id x12-v6mr7237243pfe.201.1536309981673; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 01:46:21 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1536309981; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=hAQLEo4yRlLl/O6wXQsh3LZhksUV31nw9QRIwE97L3JIDepa+C1oMSZsWcNjLnc0iY vrcsnTihI2KbSs5fCuC4qh8GVCuvYfNbU0g+dixeAqRrl3hsZ/1Kyg/TIrGHHELXHae7 4iFnoi/MektVyf/pHF97KHlfPdSmihpTQ77Jh9MJyBvKLVftwHacBaRnMfxXqMpVdY9x Qp4fHnQXt/9lmTh3OYCE9PZsRY9VwbZClNdnUlbUqhgYpd+znStSOxz7Ez1SdUn4Xuz3 jzzbShXZ6kUBd+8AD3viRokNr7tnIy1NCthNwABJLtCaPV5JuzmLzhyPPkhHqQ38WHCF oPQw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=UTGu1umYmMBe7NWjKPMajwoYu9QQ8JWVgdHYoVBHgME=; b=FuJGEPmG0t38GtbQH/HwiyWYRgF7xR/P1b+62lGlDb8boRlFbu+MnU7G3om1LAEOYl QLEnUljLqIwQ/0MMKuX4vkO5ifv8MmmF0A5z49ULueGWQhRfjSl/rVSc4LGq+FTV4WaY RRvQCDa3rHL8ih4hI06Jb/5cZo8Gn5mSnnVpKxx+O6xo6m2guKp1qr2FDaNWDuw/w0Yf ncVsyf/3ROmcqxbt5HdmHRSGIjQJroNcqLI0vL4SllWorHn1N9NFk/3svboHaj1itWpx 3OhhbbkFpVRb23SWZzsR5WTUMbDhoHpxNKIo94wAtMkYDdBMC8G8yq4ceYVjhp9ppHGj +qdw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id g69-v6si8462758pfa.204.2018.09.07.01.46.06; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 01:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727640AbeIGNWS (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 7 Sep 2018 09:22:18 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:39946 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727529AbeIGNWR (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2018 09:22:17 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w878d6g8143069 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 04:42:23 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2mbnse8nc2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 04:42:23 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 09:42:20 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 7 Sep 2018 09:42:16 +0100 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w878gFYa55836842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Sep 2018 08:42:15 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673CF42047; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:42:09 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D2142042; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:42:07 +0100 (BST) Received: from rapoport-lnx (unknown [9.148.207.119]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:42:07 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:42:12 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Michal Hocko Cc: Rob Herring , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , davem@davemloft.net, Greg Kroah-Hartman , mingo@redhat.com, Michael Ellerman , paul.burton@mips.com, Thomas Gleixner , tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/29] memblock: remove _virt from APIs returning virtual address References: <1536163184-26356-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1536163184-26356-8-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180905172017.GA2203@rapoport-lnx> <20180906072800.GN14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180906124321.GD27492@rapoport-lnx> <20180906130102.GY14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180906133958.GM27492@rapoport-lnx> <20180906134627.GZ14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180906134627.GZ14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18090708-4275-0000-0000-000002B6A7B3 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18090708-4276-0000-0000-000037BFCA50 Message-Id: <20180907084211.GA19153@rapoport-lnx> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-09-07_05:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1809070090 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:46:27PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 06-09-18 16:39:58, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:01:02PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 06-09-18 15:43:21, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > 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 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. > > > > > > Well, is _nopanic really really useful in the name. Do we even need/want > > > implicit panic/nopanic semantic? The code should rather check for the > > > return value and decide depending on the code path. I suspect removing > > > panic/nopanic would make the API slightly lighter. > > > > I agree that panic/nopanic should be removed. But I prefer to start with > > equivalent replacement to make it as automated as possible and update > > memblock API when the dust settles a bit. > > Yes, I agree with that approach. But that also doesn't justify the > renaming Well, the renaming is automated :) Anyway, we can continue arguing about keeping or removing _virt regardless of the bootmem -> memblock change. I'll redo the set with memblock_virt_alloc and we can resume the argument later on :) > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.