Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:42:36 +0530 > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> @@ -102,7 +123,7 @@ int radix__map_kernel_page(unsigned long ea, >> unsigned long pa, } >> >> set_the_pte: >> - set_pte_at(&init_mm, ea, ptep, pfn_pte(pa >> PAGE_SHIFT, >> flags)); >> + radix__set_pte(&init_mm, ea, ptep, pfn_pte(pa >> PAGE_SHIFT, >> flags)); smp_wmb(); > > What we have in existing code is set_pte_at() function that adds > the _PAGE_PTE bit, then calls __set_pte_at(), which calls radix or hash > version of __set_pte_at(). > > Now we also have radix__set_pte(), which has the function of the > set_pte_at(), which is starting to confuse the naming convention. > The new function is a radix-only set_pte_at(), rather than the > radix implementation that gets called via set_pte(). > > set_pte_at_radix()? That kind of sucks too, though. It might be better > if the radix/hash variants were called __radix__set_pte_at(), and this > new function was called radix__set_pte_at().
I think Aneesh originally used set_pte_at_r() or maybe rset_pte_at()? It was my idea to use radix__ and hash__ as prefixes for all the radix/hash functions. That was 1) to make it clear that it's not part of the name as such, ie. it's a prefix, and 2) because it's ugly as hell and hopefully that would motivate us to consolidate as many of them as possible. I balked at adding __radix__set_pte_at(), and just went with radix__set_pte_at(). But it does complicate things now. In fact I think we need to rethink this whole series, and not actually do it this way at all, meaning this naming problem will go away. cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev