On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > FWIW, I'd done a proof-of-concept patch series converting the things > to > * free_page() and free_pages() taking the address to free as a pointer > * get_zeroed_page() returning a pointer > * get_free_page()/get_free_pages() added, both returning a pointer > * __get_dma_pages() replaced with get_dma_page() (again, returns > a pointer)
Absolutely not. I will not take this, and it's stupid in the extreme. No way in hell do we suddenly change the semantics of an interface that has been around from basically day #1. That's just crazy talk. Just looking at the diffstat should have made you realize that this is stupid. The confusion it causes, the pain it causes for backports, and just the fundamental idiocy of changing an long-standing interface without changing the name is just not acceptable. If you want to have versions of the function that return pointers, you had damn well better give them new names. Not use the same name for a different function, causing confusion and forcing this kind of crazy "change everything at once" flag-day patches, and pain for backporting. And quite frankly, even the "new name" is likely a bad idea. If you want to allocate a page, and get a pointer, just use "kmalloc()". Boom, done! So I don't know how many ways I can say "NO", but I'll not take anythign like this. It's *completely* wrong. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/