linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 07/29] memblock: remove _virt from APIs returning virtual address

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180906072800.GN14951@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 09:28:00 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        mingo@...hat.com, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        paul.burton@...s.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        tony.luck@...el.com, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/29] memblock: remove _virt from APIs returning
 virtual address

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 <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The conversion is done using
> > >
> > > sed -i 's@...block_virt_alloc@...block_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.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs