On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 3:57 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 7/10/25 12:53 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 10:25 AM Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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()?
vrealloc_node()?! There is no such thing in the tree.
There are various k[zm]alloc_node() which are artifacts of the past
when NUMA just appeared and people cared about CONFIG_NUMA vs not.
Nowadays NUMA is everywhere and any new code must support NUMA
from the start. Hence no point in carrying old baggage and obsolete names.
