Re: [PATCH 00/13] Rename k[v]free_rcu() single argument to k[v]free_rcu_mightsleep()

[Uladzislau Rezki]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 04:28:40PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 15:57:02 -0400
> Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > I was going to suggest "kvfree_rcu_might_synchronize()" but that's just
> > > getting ridiculous.  
> > 
> > No, synchronize() is incorrect. The code really can sleep for other
> > reasons like memory allocation. It is not that simple of an
> > implementation as one may imagine. mightsleep is really the correct
> > wording IMHO.
> > 
> > > Still, I will replace that code back to a kfree() and rcu_synchonize() than
> > > to let that other name get in.  
> > 
> > I think it is too late for that for now, we already have conversions
> > going into the other subsystems, that means we'll have to redo all
> > that over again (even if it sounded like a good idea, which it is
> > not).
> > 
> > I would rather you just did: "#define kvfree_rcu_tracing
> > #kvfree_rcu_mightsleep", or something like that, if it is really a
> > problem. ;-)
> > 
> > Also you are really the first person I know of who has a problem with that name.
> 
> I guess you didn't read Jens's reply.
> 
> The main issue I have with this, is that "might_sleep" is just an
> implementation issue. It has *nothing* to do with what the call is about.
> It is only about freeing something with RCU. It has nothing to do with
> sleeping. I don't use it because it might sleep. I use it to free something.
> 
> If you don't like kvfree_rcu_synchronization() then call it
> kvfree_rcu_headless() and note that currently it can sleep. Because in
> the future, if we come up with an implementation where we it doesn't sleep,
> then we don't need to go and rename all the users in the future.
> 
> See where I have the problem with the name "might_sleep"?
> 
In that sense there is no need in renaming it. The current name of
single argument is kvfree_rcu(ptr). It is documented that it can sleep.

According to its name it is clear that it is headless since there
is no a second argument.

--
Uladzislau Rezki