From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3494FCD6E4A for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 13:20:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=OoiGlH/r+jJ1Fp71foigp+gKSr0VX5V5p1UlBTjIHRI=; b=yWmST8Yb/zbLqnMMUsk8Fy1RLC Eo9Pr/R6Tq2+uYYY/mem9ZDv7FgY/GJygYFSI/rmfbU+lhmvTVq+PmWRyYRD0FhrNg9jqBGKFXMhT wLUAYvmZAsawLY9CZrAzptl43mMwTy42Bj+JqzJbN91hPWKGBaAw16P0cm1yqZcZSF1zp30I6vK1+ wtwWi+Y+aU27ExdGm+pconKAcfjAWdHW+I8JOmRQwzoKcwUqbwrl5IET3g32naw9LESrNMHq67WnZ N/yhXTYe+Gxyma8r6jbuO7kPCS+kZHSr4UEbuDqed7Ou4z8fzEIgusqnb8sHw5oDGNAdoxFsDVrik H8+/L0mA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wUP2S-0000000D5O2-47By; Tue, 02 Jun 2026 13:20:12 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wUP2Q-0000000D5Nd-3uop for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2026 13:20:10 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 039B360123; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 13:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F0DE1F00893; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 13:20:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1780406409; bh=OoiGlH/r+jJ1Fp71foigp+gKSr0VX5V5p1UlBTjIHRI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=TiCwRUGputNHPiFoK4yKcQ6oN01jRdmAcp3CdX792iHHCMwJMptrcP5VHqm7cYS3F rQKQ703VtMw0lHjkdsmzompchUysfmmfXFPZP93HLLW2cYalI0PE2rTV97sHBOhWG9 EZRJ8IY44C/+b5lgu5GyO0ytqz3RvjyKaccf9hWfSpqJe5Nf2521fs3JmSGWFJScYa MQzBMNAfHzf90cXhrkzpcjY6q2ZRuoadMGdFVXQozYiVc+LNfXzmur+b6tqyJ2ZAPo IRMN1VeB5o5jKqBrM3pA5di0CEUPWQdeCHANQnmamGu54mg88ldiLcpfmsw/0iy2Rb fmkwDmzqrIkfg== Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 16:20:02 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Pratyush Yadav Cc: Pasha Tatashin , Alexander Graf , Muchun Song , Oscar Salvador , David Hildenbrand , Andrew Morton , Jason Miu , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] memblock: introduce MEMBLOCK_KHO_SCRATCH_EXT Message-ID: References: <20260429133928.850721-1-pratyush@kernel.org> <20260429133928.850721-10-pratyush@kernel.org> <2vxzecjhc2s8.fsf@kernel.org> <2vxzse7j7ai9.fsf@kernel.org> <2vxztsrlds0d.fsf@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2vxztsrlds0d.fsf@kernel.org> X-BeenThere: kexec@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+kexec=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jun 02, 2026 at 02:52:02PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > On Sun, May 31 2026, Mike Rapoport wrote: > >> > > >> > If we want to keep the naming aligned with the existing codebase for now: > >> > MEMBLOCK_KHO_SCRATCH -> original scratch > >> > MEMBLOCK_KHO_UNPRESERVED -> for the new memory (instead of SCRATCH_EXT) > >> > >> UNPRESERVED sounds good to me. I will use that for the next revision > >> unless Mike objects. > > > > Can we make it shorter? ;-) > > > > UNPRESERVED makes sense, although I'd love to completely remove KHO_ notion > > and make the name reflect how it's used by memblock. I was toying with > > PREFERRED instead of SCRATCH, but it didn't feel right enough. > > With two of them that surely won't work :) > > I don't think you really can remove KHO_ notion. These memory regions > only make sense on a KHO boot, and won't exist otherwise. And PREFERRED > sounds like a suggestion/priority hint, not a hard limit. "With KHO > boot, you can _only_ use PREFERRED memory", doesn't sound right... > > I think MEMBLOCK_KHO_BOOTMEM for scratch and MEMBLOCK_KHO_NOPRESERVE > (which I think is a tiny bit better than UNPRESERVED) for scratch_ext > are my top picks. To make it shorter, perhaps MEMBLOCK_KHO_NOPRSRV, in > similar fashion to RSRV_KERN? There are a couple of unrelated 'bootmem' things in the kernel, adding another one shouldn't hurt :) I like MEMBLOCK_KHO_BOOTMEM and MEMBLOCK_KHO_NOPRSRV the most. > >> would like this series to not get muddled in the naming discussion. I > >> will use UNPRESERVED for the new concept in v2 though. > > > > That might warrant v3 even if everything else is perfect :) > > I can live with that. As long as we can agree on the easy part (the > code), I don't mind doing another version for the hard part (the naming) > ;-) It makes sense to keep KHO_SCRATCH for now and use MEMBLOCK_KHO_NOPRSRV for the new one to begin with. And then we can ask an LLM do the renaming. > -- > Regards, > Pratyush Yadav -- Sincerely yours, Mike.