Re: [PATCH 2/6] change alloc function in pcpu_alloc_pages

[Tejun Heo]

On 04/19/2010 12:54 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> alloc_pages is the same as alloc_pages_any_node so why have it?
> 
> I don't want to force using '_node' postfix on UMA users.
> Maybe they don't care getting page from any node and event don't need to
> know about _NODE_. 

Yeah, then, remove alloc_pages_any_node().  I can't really see the
point of any_/exact_node.  alloc_pages() and alloc_pages_node() are
fine and in line with other functions.  Why change it?

>> Why remove it? If you want to get rid of -1 handling then check all the
> 
> alloc_pages_node have multiple meaning as you said. So some of users
> misuses that API. I want to clear intention of user.

The name is fine.  Just clean up the users and make the intended usage
clear in documentation and implementation (ie. trigger a big fat
warning) and make all the callers use named constants instead of -1
for special meanings.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/