From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965069AbVI0VAs (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:00:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965070AbVI0VAs (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:00:48 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:43182 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932523AbVI0VAr (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:00:47 -0400 Message-ID: <4339B2F6.1070806@austin.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:00:38 -0500 From: Joel Schopp User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050909 Fedora/1.7.10-1.3.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Jackson CC: haveblue@us.ibm.com, mrmacman_g4@mac.com, akpm@osdl.org, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mel@csn.ul.ie, kravetz@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/9] add defrag flags References: <4338537E.8070603@austin.ibm.com> <43385412.5080506@austin.ibm.com> <21024267-29C3-4657-9C45-17D186EAD808@mac.com> <1127780648.10315.12.camel@localhost> <20050926224439.056eaf8d.pj@sgi.com> <433991A0.7000803@austin.ibm.com> <20050927123055.0ad9c2b4.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20050927123055.0ad9c2b4.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Once this is merged with current Linux, which already has GFP_HARDWALL, > I presume you will be back up to 21 bits, code and comment. Looks like it. > > As I noted in another message the "USER" and the comment in: > > #define __GFP_USER 0x40000u /* User is a userspace user */ > > are a bit misleading now. Perhaps GFP_EASYRCLM? > A rose by any other name would smell as sweet -Romeo A flag by any other name would work as well -Joel There are problems with any name we would use. I personally like __GFP_USER because it is mostly user memory, and nobody will accidently use it to label something that is not user memory. Those who do use it for non-user memory will do so with more caution and ridicule. This will keep it from expanding in use beyond its intent. If we name it __GFP_EASYRCLM we then start getting into questions about what we mean by easy and somebody is going to decide that their kernel memory is pretty easy to reclaim and mess things up. Maybe we could call it __GPF_REALLYREALLYEASYRCLM to avoid confusion. If there is a consensus from multiple people for me to go rename the flag __GFP_xxxxx then I'm not that attached to it and will. But for now I'm going to leave it __GFP_USER.