From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Hildenbrand Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 19:08:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] mm/memory_hotplug: Rename mhp_restrictions to mhp_modifiers Message-Id: <5D5ED235-EB67-4072-8CCA-C046B7EC031C@redhat.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Dan Williams Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand , Peter Zijlstra , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Dave Hansen , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM , Will Deacon , Christoph Hellwig , linux-s390 , Linux-sh , Ingo Molnar , Catalin Marinas , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , Michal Hocko , Linux ARM , linuxppc-dev , Eric Badger , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Logan Gunthorpe > Am 08.01.2020 um 20:00 schrieb Dan Williams : > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:17 AM Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 2020-01-08 5:28 a.m., David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 07.01.20 21:59, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >>>> The mhp_restrictions struct really doesn't specify anything resembling >>>> a restriction anymore so rename it to be mhp_modifiers. >>> >>> I wonder if something like "mhp_params" would be even better. It's >>> essentially just a way to avoid changing call chains rough-out all archs >>> whenever we want to add a new parameter. >> >> Sure, that does sound a bit nicer to me. I can change it for v3. > > Oh, I was just about to chime in to support "modifiers" because I > would expect all parameters to folded into a "params" struct. The > modifiers seem to be limited to the set of items that are only > considered in a non-default / expert memory hotplug use cases. > It‘s a set of extended parameters I‘d say.