Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce try_alloc_pages for 6.15

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 02:59, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yes I was going to point out that e.g. "nmisafe_local_lock_irqsave()" seems
> rather misleading to me as this operation is not a nmisafe one?

Yeah, it's not a great name either, IO admit.

> The following attempt [2] meant there would be only a new local_trylock_t
> type, but the existing locking operations would remain the same, relying on
> _Generic() parts inside them.

Hmm. I actually like that approach.

That avoids having the misleading operation naming. IOW, you'd not
have a "localtry" when it's not a trylock, and you'd not have
"nmisafe" when it's not an operation that is actually nmi-safe.

The downside of _Generic() is that it's a bit subtle and can hide the
actual operation, but I think that in this situation that's the whole
point.

So yes, I'd vote for the "let's just introduce the new type that has
the required 'acquired' field, and then use a _Generic() model to
automatically pick the right op".

                Linus