Nathan Lynch via B4 Relay <devnull+nathanl.linux.ibm....@kernel.org> writes: > 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().
I'm not sure about this one. The "unlocked" is meant to convey that it doesn't do any locking. The caller has to be OK with that, or do its own locking. Andrew is right that the common naming pattern is foo() that takes the lock and __foo() that doesn't - but I agree that's not very pretty. Can we just leave it as-is? cheers
