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

Nishanth Aravamudan
2007-06-12T21:31:46Z

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()

but change node_memory() to node_has_memory() ?

Thanks,
Nish

--
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center