On Thu Jul 10, 2025 at 1:14 AM CEST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 3:57 PM Danilo Krummrich <d...@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/10/25 12:53 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 10:25 AM Vitaly Wool <vitaly.w...@konsulko.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()?
>
> 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.
This patch adds it; do you suggest to redefine vrealloc_noprof() to take align
and nid? If we don't mind being inconsistent with krealloc_noprof() and
kvrealloc_noprof() that's fine I guess.
FWIW, I prefer consistency.
