Re: [PATCH 0/4] kho: rename "scratch" to "bootmem"

[Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:58:55PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17 2026, Rob Herring wrote:
> 
> For patch 3, I am honestly surprised at how large it ended up being. But
> I am in principle opposed to the idea that we should not do any
> housekeeping because it might cause "churn". So I think if the end
> result is better then churn shouldn't stop us.
>

Not really concerned about churn itself, just that I didn't fully see
the value in moving from Scratch to NoPreserve - these things sort of
read the same to me.  The additional context you've provided is
reasonable, thank you for helping me understand better.

> 
> I renamed the commandline option because similar things have been done
> in the past for other options too.
> 
> See commit c5bfece2d612 ("nohz: Switch from "extended nohz" to "full
> nohz" based naming") for example. It renamed "nohz_extended" to
> "nohz_full" because it is "a bit opaque and vague".
>

Also not opposed to the rename, just worth the question since it will
break existing users. I know boot args don't have ABI guarantees, but
some are used more than others :].

>
> That said, I am not opposed to keeping backwards compatibility if
> someone _does_ complain.
> 

I think you've made the case well enough here, I appreciate the help in
understanding.

~Gregory