Andrew Donnellan [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:33 -0600, Nathan Lynch via B4 Relay wrote:

quoted

From: Nathan Lynch <redacted>

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 <redacted>

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.