Re: [PATCH 5/8] powerpc/rtas: rename va_rtas_call_unlocked() to va_rtas_call()

Nathan Lynch via B4 Relay writes: > From: Nathan Lynch > > The function name va_rtas_call_unlocked() is confusing: it may be > called with or without rtas_lock held. Rename it to va_rtas_call(). I'm not sure about this one. The "unlocked" is meant to convey that it doesn't do any locking. The

Re: [PATCH 5/8] powerpc/rtas: rename va_rtas_call_unlocked() to va_rtas_call()

Andrew Donnellan writes: > On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:33 -0600, Nathan Lynch via B4 Relay wrote: >> From: Nathan Lynch >> >> The function name va_rtas_call_unlocked() is confusing: it may be >> called with or without rtas_lock held. Rename it to va_rtas_call(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch

Re: [PATCH 5/8] powerpc/rtas: rename va_rtas_call_unlocked() to va_rtas_call()

On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:33 -0600, Nathan Lynch via B4 Relay wrote: > From: Nathan Lynch > > The function name va_rtas_call_unlocked() is confusing: it may be > called with or without rtas_lock held. Rename it to va_rtas_call(). > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch Not a huge fan of the name, the

[PATCH 5/8] powerpc/rtas: rename va_rtas_call_unlocked() to va_rtas_call()

From: Nathan Lynch The function name va_rtas_call_unlocked() is confusing: it may be called with or without rtas_lock held. Rename it to va_rtas_call(). Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch --- arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas.c | 9 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git