Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2022 17:53:51 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc:     Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@linux.intel.com>,
        david.keisarschm@mail.huji.ac.il, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Renaming weak prng invocations -
 prandom_bytes_state, prandom_u32_state
Message-ID: <Y5nxjzV0Mio86NU6@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <cover.1670778651.git.david.keisarschm@mail.huji.ac.il>
 <b3caaa5ac5fca4b729bf1ecd0d01968c09e6d083.1670778652.git.david.keisarschm@mail.huji.ac.il>
 <Y5c8KLzJFz/XZMiM@zx2c4.com>
 <20221214123358.GA1062210@linux.intel.com>
 <CANn89iJtK4m1cWvCwp=L_rEOEBa+B1kLZJAw0D9_cYPQcAj+Mw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iJtK4m1cWvCwp=L_rEOEBa+B1kLZJAw0D9_cYPQcAj+Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:15:49PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 1:34 PM Stanislaw Gruszka
> <stanislaw.gruszka@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 03:35:20PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > Please CC me on future revisions.
> > >
> > > As of 6.2, the prandom namespace is *only* for predictable randomness.
> > > There's no need to rename anything. So nack on this patch 1/5.
> >
> > It is not obvious (for casual developers like me) that p in prandom
> > stands for predictable. Some renaming would be useful IMHO.
> 
> Renaming makes backports more complicated, because stable teams will
> have to 'undo' name changes.
> Stable teams are already overwhelmed by the amount of backports, and
> silly merge conflicts.
> 
> Take another example :
> 
> u64 timecounter_read(struct timecounter *tc)
> 
> You would think this function would read the timecounter, right ?
> 
> Well, it _updates_ many fields from @tc, so a 'better name' would also
> be useful.

Right, at some point we become into the world of

#define true 0

because... (read below)

> linux kernel is not for casual readers.

P.S. I believe you applied a common sense and in some cases
     the renames are necessary.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko