MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230201150815.409582-1-urezki@gmail.com> <20230315151415.2534e11c@gandalf.local.home>
 <e5a1815b-65b5-55ca-9773-ec04378d53c0@kernel.dk> <ZBIbloFMm5xRsjfn@pc636>
 <20230315153448.6914f85b@gandalf.local.home> <CAEXW_YTLFQ3-LApyCPNNx7Tn2ovFr8YUXL=1WVCm+rE2hRKE8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230315162840.106a5b4f@gandalf.local.home> <CAEXW_YTNNJJftsg1QRvhUCRoZpKa3SM6=-0M-cukCGt5=G+row@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230315182628.39329315@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20230315182628.39329315@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2023 22:13:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YSMr7b4K11T6kjThG8-DyxNiJMU3LOo-SwQ+Ev8h9taMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Rename k[v]free_rcu() single argument to k[v]free_rcu_mightsleep()
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com>,
        Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@linbit.com>,
        Bryan Tan <bryantan@vmware.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Bob Pearson <rpearsonhpe@gmail.com>,
        Ariel Levkovich <lariel@nvidia.com>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hey Steve,

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 6:26=E2=80=AFPM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org=
> 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