From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755014AbZBYMyp (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:54:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752722AbZBYMyh (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:54:37 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:58322 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752665AbZBYMyg (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:54:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:54:15 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Rusty Russell Cc: Tejun Heo , Yinghai Lu , tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, jeremy@goop.org, cpw@sgi.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru Subject: Re: [PATCHSET x86/core/percpu] improve the first percpu chunk allocation Message-ID: <20090225125415.GF26273@elte.hu> References: <1235445101-7882-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20090224205105.GA19460@elte.hu> <20090224211659.GA3687@elte.hu> <200902251710.27205.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200902251710.27205.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Rusty Russell 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