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:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 13:57:20 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@bytedance.com>
Cc:     "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
        maple-tree@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Maple Tree Work
Message-ID: <ZLFGMGtk2WMbGhuf@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230707163815.ns4kdz7iut5octjv@revolver>
 <0152143a-b105-a413-ddf2-47f688633d97@bytedance.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0152143a-b105-a413-ddf2-47f688633d97@bytedance.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 05:58:13PM +0800, Peng Zhang wrote:
> I have a question I want to discuss here. I noticed that the interface
> of maple tree has three different prefixes, namely mtree_*, mt_*, mas_*.
> I am curious why the interfaces prefixed with mtree_* and mt_* cannot be
> unified? I think they can be changed to mtree_* to avoid two different
> prefixes.

I haven't worried about this too much.  The long-term goal is to use
the maple tree data structure to replace the radix tree data structure
underlying the xarray and use the xarray API to access the maple tree.
The xarray API will need some enhancements to make this work, but churning
the maple tree API doesn't seem like a good use of effort.