[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14b08e7c-c2e8-435c-a1dd-bd51cfb42060@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:57:28 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.se>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
rust-for-linux <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 1/4] mm/vmalloc: allow to set node and align in
vrealloc
On 7/10/25 12:53 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 10:25 AM Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.se> wrote:
>>
>>
>> -void *vrealloc_noprof(const void *p, size_t size, gfp_t flags)
>> +void *vrealloc_node_align_noprof(const void *p, size_t size, unsigned long align,
>> + gfp_t flags, int node)
>> {
>
> imo this is a silly pattern to rename functions because they
> got new arguments.
> The names of the args are clear enough "align" and "node".
> I see no point in adding the same suffixes to a function name.
> In the future this function will receive another argument and
> the function would be renamed again?!
> "_noprof" suffix makes sense, since it's there for alloc_hooks,
> but "_node_align_" is unnecessary.
Do you have an alternative proposal given that we also have vrealloc() and
vrealloc_node()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists