From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v9 00/31] use lmb with x86
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:39:09 -0700
Message-ID: <4BB10FED.8040308@kernel.org>
References: <1269830604-26214-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <1269865331.24620.44.camel@concordia> <4BB0DAC2.3000805@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:46414 "EHLO hera.kernel.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751357Ab0C2UlB (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:41:01 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4BB0DAC2.3000805@kernel.org>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: michael@ellerman.id.au
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org

On 03/29/2010 09:52 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 03/29/2010 05:22 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 19:42 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> the new lmb could be used to early_res in x86.
>>>
>>> Suggested by: David, Ben, and Thomas
>>>
>>> First three patches should go into 2.6.34
>>>
>>> -v6: change sequence as requested by Thomas
>>> -v7: seperate them to more patches
>>> -v8: add boundary checking to make sure not free partial page.
>>> -v9: use lmb_debug to control print out of reserve_lmb.
>>>      add e820 clean up, and e820 become __initdata
>>
>> Bike shedding perhaps, but can you maintain the naming convention, ie.
>> lmb_xxx() rather than xxx_lmb(). Neither is necessarily better, but all
>> the existing functions use the lmb_xxx() style.
>>
> 
> so you want
> 
> find_lmb_area ==> lmb_find_area
> reserve_lmb ==> lmb_reserve
> free_lmb ==> lmb_free
> 
> first one is ok, 
> 
> but next two we already have lmb_reserved and lmb_free without checking and increasing the size of region array.
> 
> should i use 
> lmb_reserve_with_check?
> 

I change 

find_lmb_area ==> lmb_find_area
reserve_lmb ==> lmb_reserve_area
free_lmb ==> lmb_free_area

does that look ok to you?

Thanks

Yinghai