>    Then why isn't it called splmalloc(), or something like that?
   >    splimp() implies to me something to do with networking.
   > 
   > It's historical.  Changing the name would be gratuitous.

   Uh...

Reality check:

1) What I did has a sound architectural reason behind it, and is
completely upward compatible.

2) What Ted proposed was change for the sake of change, and the
proposed name wasn't even valid.

   [...]
   even though renaming it would make the fact clear that _something_
   fundamental had changed?

3) In fact, it would not, because the change would be in code that
most people would never look at.