(cc list trimmed)

On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 11:55 -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:04:14 +0200
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Yes they are some names discrepancies, thats a big deal.
> > 
> > And we have alloc_skb() / kfree_skb() / skb_clone() 
> > 
> > Why not skb_alloc() / skb_free() / skb_clone() ?
> > 
> > Some people actually know current code by name of functions, they dont
> > want to change their mind and having to grep include files and git log
> > to learn the new names of an old function, especially when traveling
> > and using a laptop.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Also, it makes sense to introduce a more consistent name for a function
> when it's improved in some way and the callers need to be adjusted or
> re-checked.
> 
> That way, the old name can be phased out as the code is made compatible
> with the new function.

That can also be done, as was done with this series, with backward
compatible #defines.