[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090225125415.GF26273@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:54:15 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hpa@...or.com, jeremy@...p.org, cpw@....com,
nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET x86/core/percpu] improve the first percpu chunk
allocation
* Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 February 2009 07:46:59 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > kernel/trace/trace_functions_graph.c: In function ‘graph_trace_close’:
> > kernel/trace/trace_functions_graph.c:836: error: implicit declaration of function ‘percpu_free’
> >
> > that's free_percpu() now, right?
> >
> > Btw., why was this rename done? We generally standardize on
> > hierarchical names, going from the more general to the more
> > specific names, left to right.
>
> Agreed, but we had both, doing identical things, and
> free_percpu outnumbered percpu_free by a significant factor
> (about 40 to 5 IIRC).
40 places to rename => peanuts! :-)
> Simple pragmatism, and it matches alloc_percpu.
it also matches other allocator mis-namings in mm/*.c.
I concur.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists