Re: [PATCH 01/11] resource: Add System RAM resource type

[Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com>]

On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 19:23 -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 15:23 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 01:04:32PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
>  :
> > > I agree that we can add new interfaces with the type check.  This
> > > 'type'
> > > may need some clarification since it is an assigned type, which is
> > > different from I/O resource type.  That is, "System RAM" is an I/O 
> > > resource type (i.e. IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM), but "Crash kernel" is an 
> > > assigned type to a particular range of System RAM.  A range may be 
> > > associated with multiple names, so as multiple assigned types.  For 
> > > lack of a better idea, I may call it 'assign_type'.  I am open for a
> > > better name.
> > 
> > Or assigned_type or named_type or so...
> > 
> > I think we should avoid calling it "type" completely in order to avoid
> > confusion with the IORESOURCE_* types and call it "desc" or so to mean
> > description, sort, etc, because the name is also a description of the
> > resource to a certain degree...
> 
> Agreed. I will use 'desc'.
> 
> > > OK, I will try to convert the existing callers with the new
> > > interfaces.
> > 
> > Either that or add the new interfaces, use them in your use case, add
> > big fat comments explaining that people should use those from now on
> > when searching by name and add a check to checkpatch to catch future
> > mis-uses...
> 
> Sounds good.  I will look into it.

As for checkpatch, I noticed that commit 9c0ece069b3 removed "feature
-removal.txt" file, and checkpatch removed this check in commit
78e3f1f01d2.  checkpatch does not have such check since then.  So, I am
inclined not to add this check back to checkpatch.

Thanks,
-Toshi

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>