Andrew Donnellan <a...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:33 -0600, Nathan Lynch via B4 Relay wrote: >> From: Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> >> >> The function name va_rtas_call_unlocked() is confusing: it may be >> called with or without rtas_lock held. Rename it to va_rtas_call(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> > > Not a huge fan of the name, the va_ suggests that the only difference > between this function and rtas_call() is the varargs handling. Perhaps > something like __rtas_call()?
I would be more inclined to agree if va_rtas_call() were a public API, like rtas_call(). But it's not, so the convention you're appealing to shouldn't inform the expectations of external users of the rtas_* APIs, at least. __rtas_call() conveys strictly less information than va_rtas_call() IMO. Most functions in the kernel that take a va_list have a "v" worked into their name somehow.
