From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 472F918DB24; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 03:03:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751425382; cv=none; b=epS8W60z0yeXouGp89KHDQUcTsWEQu+QoF2Z4fZxC/aQCo8eQzbP2Sq6icOMOudsXaFnvBoYvrDPpbSnnAUvpHDGphQ/ar3HvqGjjokNOV7ak6VXDtP74niZpH8VVhzECfBtSBBcPp5Z8oL+AGB2weU0BpleeAR5wUe11QWb2L0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751425382; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Z7EPp0HQjcqsgwPn42IotAoCEJLB9Eq5EuXBotZk5Q8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hcTPSzF0/ox9QKPdPf+2iAwNXYVhJGxsML4a0yQFFpKuD9KXKkyIdQeRp3uCLKFrLKQcdolPYS0JvOUuNQpOwK/UVWPcA+KEaSoC5pyigxtjG5Z2S7uMZAydpBkWKbtRE9LpS12Won6NTopbuwLUI+FizwuwQFIO2wAMXGGtQQE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=P1yNF0Oq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="P1yNF0Oq" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84124C4CEEB; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 03:03:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1751425381; bh=Z7EPp0HQjcqsgwPn42IotAoCEJLB9Eq5EuXBotZk5Q8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=P1yNF0Oqdd2Wo0e10UqSe4g8qqy96uOrSENJPNZ68J9sQQmJcwf93BzTd1Z7CX1tp 6vwSVHQC6Z2Dyv3PLrKAOjilNtcT4w77Bg6gXekgToSRO8N2ZgvGKAEVLIfQjvKoPI YheUprZ9H83kITwkoC1fmn4EkoG/FILuA2nGhkPa48HNyhNNsnLzznQ/+jNp7Ti48r s8T7EymyDsOZqwu9JfYIxiyXy5SvUaYSnUQs4fI0G4dad8goFOA89s0rHk9ahaDiXm IlqnOl287ZaD6A6tsq6fQN2VbZXDwaJPg6nRE6BGo0rp367d7DN6Fwx0PgAYnEk59b R6dbY2iM0YgxA== From: SeongJae Park To: Bijan Tabatabai Cc: SeongJae Park , Andrew Morton , Bijan Tabatabai , damon@lists.linux.dev, kernel-team@meta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] mm/damon: add struct damos_migrate_dest Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 20:02:59 -0700 Message-Id: <20250702030259.23149-1-sj@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.5 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: damon@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 20:43:46 -0500 Bijan Tabatabai wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 7:25 PM SeongJae Park wrote: > > > > On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 17:43:30 -0500 Bijan Tabatabai wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:31:28 -0700 SeongJae Park wrote: > > > > > > > Introduce a new struct, namely damos_migrate_dest, for specifying > > > > multiple DAMOS' migration destination nodes and their weights. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park > > > > --- > > > > include/linux/damon.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/damon.h b/include/linux/damon.h > > > > index bb58e36f019e..d60addd0b7c8 100644 > > > > --- a/include/linux/damon.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/damon.h > > > > @@ -447,6 +447,22 @@ struct damos_access_pattern { > > > > unsigned int max_age_region; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > + * struct damos_migrate_dest - Migration destination nodes and their weights. > > > > > > Nit: Can this be renamed to damos_migrate_dests? > > > I think plural fits better because it stores a list of destinations. > > > > Makes sense, agreed. I guess you will do that on your own when you add this on > > your patch series? Please let me know if you prefer different ways. I could > > also do that and send it again as RFC v2 of this series. > > I can do this in my patch series. Thank you! > Would the best way for me to do that be to send modified versions of > this patch series with my patches, or should I send one additional > patch that just renames the struct with my patches? I think the former (making modification in place of this patch) is better, for people who will read the commit log in future. Please don't forget adding your Singed-off-by: tag, and let me know if any help is needed! Thanks, SJ [...]