Re: [patch 1/3] NUMA: introduce node_memory_map

[Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>]

Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 12.06.2007 [14:10:44 -0700], David Rientjes wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, David Rientjes wrote:
>>>
>>>>>   * int node_online(node)		Is some node online?
>>>>>   * int node_possible(node)		Is some node possible?
>>>>> + * int node_memory(node)		Does a node have memory?
>>>>>   *
>>>> This name doesn't make sense; wouldn't node_has_memory() be better?
>>> node_set_has_memory and node_clear_has_memory sounds a bit strange.
>>>
>> This will probably be one of those things that people see in the
>> source and have to look up everytime.  node_has_memory() is
>> straight-forward and to the point.
> 
> Indeed, I did and (I like to think) I helped write the patches :)
> 
> Why not just make the boolean sensible?
> 
> We can keep
> 
> node_set_memory()
> node_clear_memory()

node_clear_memory() sounds like something to memset all of that node's
memory or something.

> but change node_memory() to node_has_memory() ?

-apw

--
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>